2000-11-083917REPS2235902000-11-08—————The House met at 9.30 a.m.Miscellaneous22359The Clerk—I inform the House of the absence of the Speaker, who is attending a Centenary of Federation ceremony. The Speaker will be in attendance later this day. In accordance with standing order 14, the Deputy Speaker, as Acting Speaker, will take the chair. 10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.Bills22359R104922359Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.09:32:0022359Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—It is timely that the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 comes before parliament, as it is directly related to recent revelations of breaches of the public confidence and the public interest for which this government is squarely responsible. I refer to the recent breaches in public confidence, including the former Senator Colston affair, the radiologists MRI scan scam and the Reith telecard affair. These three breaches have greatly angered the people of Australia. It is not the seriousness of the offences alone that has angered the Australian community but the lengths gone to to hide those breaches from the public. Thank God for the watchdog—the media. The moral reasoning behind the introduction of this legislation is that Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR. Australia's first attempt to comply with its obligations under this bill resulted in the ill-fated Australia Card in the 1980s. The Australia Card failed to be introduced because it was seen as an intrusion into privacy. However, the residual part of the privacy package survived and became known as the Privacy Act 1988, which we have today. The provisions of that act essentially regulate the management of private information in the hands of Commonwealth government agencies. From the outset then, the original purpose of the Privacy Act was compromised. Whilst it afforded more rights in the hands of individuals, it did not and does not make provision for powers to preserve the public interest. What is the purpose of today's bill? The purpose is to protect individual rights against advances in technology, principally information technology, which may collect, disseminate and analyse information about a person and hence constitute intelligence against that person. This bill seeks to fulfil its obligations under the ICCPR by making provisions that cover the collection, dissemination and analysis of privately held as well as publicly held data. What moral goods are in issue here and do these moral goods conflict with other goods? There are two positive goods in question: first, an individual's right to privacy and, second, the necessity for Australia to fulfil its moral and legal obligations. Competing against these goods is something I have already mentioned: the public interest. I do not for one moment suggest that the Australia Card was the proper way to provide for the preservation of the public interest. However, I note that in the existing Privacy Act there is precious little public policy rationale that balances the two goods of the individual's interests and our obligations under an international instrument as against the good of preserving the public interest. I have referred to gap analysis in this house on a previous occasion. Gap analysis is looking at changes to the legislative scheme that exists before an amendment is made, then looking at the scheme after the amendment is made. In this case, the pre-existing law on privacy was a weighted scheme of mutual obligations between citizen and state. Bills Digest 193 of 1999-2000 cites the two rationales for this bill: a positive reason for this bill being analogous to a `human rights' argument, and, secondly, a so-called `pragmatic' argument of financial and trade implications that would affect Australia if we did not become signatories to this bill.These two arguments truly sum up the liberalism that is the hallmark of this government's attitude to practically every bill it has raised during the last two terms of Commonwealth government. This government first looks to the line of least resistance—that is, the line of law-making that reaches the least amount of resistance from a public morality perspective. This is so even if the law itself would trammel fundamentally matters of grave importance in the public interest. I will in a moment demonstrate the logical consequences of this government's reasoning. With the benefit of the Colston example, which is in all the newspapers this morning, I will show how the existing privacy legislation works—or should I say does not work—in light of this government's misguided policies. For now, it is only necessary for me to say that the rationale for this bill is neither a human rights argument nor a pragmatic one about financial repercussions against Australia if we do not bend to the letter of the backdoor legislation called external affairs powers through the use of international instruments to make laws without the mandate of the public. What is the intention of the Bills Digest in drawing our attention to privacy being increasingly considered a human right? It is clear from the Bills Digest summary that privacy, like other post-industrial phenomena under the banner of human rights, includes a growing number of so-called rights which in effect deny the good operation of government. Prior to this post-industrial liberalism contaminating our legislative scheme, the duty relationship of the state was as mediate right holder over the citizen. This relationship was based on the intrinsic dignity of the individual, rather than the present case that some international instrument says privacy is a right. Who says privacy is a human right? The answer given by the government is that an OECD instrument says it is. What sort of answer is that? Are our rights as individuals to be determined by the OECD? Or are our rights to be determined by something higher than what is effectively an international trade lobby? It is no less true that a human being's dignity must be preserved by virtue of the disclosive truth that `man is made in God's image'. However, this disclosive truth has been sidelined by this new, false god called the categorical imperative of the international instrument; that is, because the OECD says it is true, therefore it must be true. How false this new god is. Why should this parliament serve it? We must not.The practical distinction between the human dignity model of moral law and the law afforded by the ratification of international instruments such as the IPP is that the international instrument is imbalanced. In the human dignity model, a system of mutual obligation exists—that is, an individual's immediate rights are measured in proportion to the powers obtained by the state and vice versa. This bill and the Privacy Act are imbalanced in favour of the private person, including corporations. So, too, is the issue of the so-called pragmatic reasoning for today's bill—that is, the bill is moved so as to ensure that pragmatic economic and trade pressures require the safe collection, storage and security of personal information for trade to be preserved. It is this so-called pragmatic argument with which I am particularly concerned. This argument is again making a priority of what is called pragmatism to justify this bill being passed. There is a point at issue which is most sinister in this bill. I mentioned earlier that the bill is drafted so as to more fully comply with the ICCPR. In addition, Bills Digest No. 193 notes:... the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) are based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines of 1980 on the protection of privacy, to which Australia is (also) a signatory.In a previous speech in this House I made a statement on the encroachment of globalisation. In that speech, I referred to the abortive effort of this government to fulfil its obligations to ratify domestic legislation in compliance with another international instrument to which Australia is a party—the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. In the MAI, an explicit attempt was made by this government to introduce legislation that would make it an offence to have legislation which hindered the free flow of capital.It is interesting to note that both the IPPs and the MAI are OECD instruments. It is the OECD that is behind the policy rationales this government is pursuing with such vigour. Both the IPP and the MAI are built on an ethical foundation that private interest is paramount over public interest. Both seek to create a world where the government of the day must adhere to the private interest. In both instruments, the private interest is paramount. This line of reasoning appeals to notions of liberalism. Liberalism, especially of this present government, appeals to some people's senses. Some people think: `A thing is good to me, therefore it is good.' This line of thinking reduces everything to a `right'—`It is my right to do this or that.' Rights based legislation is defective, for it denies any meaningful analysis of means or end and, therefore, law based on the morality of obtaining means. The government is building a legislative scheme on rights alone. This government is denying the possibility of categorical imperatives that are immutable duty relationships between the citizen and the state. There are ontological truths based on the philosophy of mutual obligation. Citizens are duty bound to their country. We all abide by social contracts that we will prescribe to behave according to a minimum socially accepted code of conduct. This is the criminal code. By denying the ability to prosecute on behalf of the public interest, this government is denying the operation of the public interest. This government is saying that it is simply too hard to implement the public interest; so, in effect, this government is abandoning the public interest. What is necessary for the good operation of government? It is necessary for all law to be balanced. On the one hand, it is never permissible for a public or national interest to override a person's dignity—that is dictatorship. Nor is governance of a country capable of cohesion if an individual's so-called rights are so great as to dash the prosecution of the state in enforcing the public interest. True, this balancing of competing public and private interests is a delicate balancing act, and often one side of the scale will tip to the detriment of the other. Indeed, it is always a series of perpetual adjustments with the development of extrinsic variables such as technology—the catalyst mentioned here today and the reason behind this bill.I put to this House that the scales of the current legislative scheme in the Privacy Act and ancillary legislation are tipped against the public interest and in favour of the private interest. I say this specifically with many public interest issues in mind such as the travel rorts scandal of former Senator Mal Colston, the Reith $50,000 telecard affair and the billion dollar radiologists MRI scan scam.What is the relevance of these three scandals to the bill before us today? I turn to the issue of former Senator Colston. Following the Attorney-General's reply to my question on notice No. 1154 of 15 February 2000, I asked the Attorney-General a further question, No. 1573, on 29 May 2000 on the application of the IPPs to the prosecution of former Senator Colston. The Attorney-General admitted that details of travel expenditure involve expenditure of public money and is a matter within the public interest and, hence, raise issues of protection of public revenue for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988. The Attorney-General noted that disclosure of the former senator's medical records `is not reasonably necessary for the protection of the public revenue'. Under the IPP, the Attorney-General said that this policy did not compel him to disclose the names and reports of the two eminent and independent medical specialists, and concluded by saying that there is `insufficient public interest to justify the release of the information'. The Attorney-General just did not believe there was sufficient public interest and relied on the information privacy principles to deny me access to this information. In his media statement on 5 July 1999, the director noted:... the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth sets out factors which may arise in determining whether the DPP should decline to proceed further in a prosecution ... In the light of the medical evidence there is no prospect of this matter being able to proceed to trial ...On 4 September 2000 I asked the Attorney-General a further question on notice, No. 1925. This question was answered on 19 October 2000. At question (7) of question on notice No. 1925, I put to the Attorney-General:To what extent was the `necessity to maintain public confidence in such basic institutions as the Parliament and the courts' (Prosecution Policy subparagraph 2.10(t)) a paramount consideration in declining to proceed with prosecution. The Attorney General answered:It was of major importance. At question (10), I asked:Would the DPP consider obtaining a further medical examination in order to ascertain Mr Colston's current fitness to stand trial?The Attorney-General answered:The DPP's decision was based on independent expert medical advice that Mr Colston was not fit to stand trial and there was no prospect that he would be fit to stand trial in the future. If there was evidence contrary to that advice it would be considered. In light of the information privacy principles and how the director has applied them, can any member of this House explain how the public interest can be satisfied, given the Attorney-General's admission that the matter would be reconsidered if evidence contrary to earlier advice could be obtained? How is that evidence to be obtained but through an initiative of the Director of Public Prosecutions himself? My further question 13(e) asked:When did ... Mr Colston's legal counsel file evidence of his medical condition?The Attorney-General answered:The DPP was provided with medical reports by Mr Colston's solicitors on 3 and 13 November 1997 and 7 April 1999.Yesterday was 19 months to the day since 7 April 1999, since any medical evidence of former Senator Colston's condition was put before the DPP. However, I quote from today's media:Dr Colston's wife, Dawn, told Australian Associated Press yesterday that the DPP had been given medical reports on her husband's health four months ago which showed his condition had deteriorated.On 22 June 2000, at 12.13 p.m. precisely, my electorate officer, Ms Susan Sheather, received a telephone call in my office here in Parliament House from a woman who identified herself as Mrs Dawn Colston. She attempted to intimidate Ms Sheather and threatened to blow the whistle on all Labor Party members of parliament if I were to continue to ask questions in parliament about her husband. I have not noticed Mrs Dawn Colston tendering any evidence to the DPP, the parliament or anywhere else in respect of the behaviour of any members of this parliament, and I invite her to do so. She should know something about it.Further, her husband is supposed to have a terminal illness. I do not wish former Senator Colston ill but, after 19 months, is it reasonable for the DPP to reconsider reopening this matter? I say that in light of reports that, since 7 April 1999, former Senator Colston has been seen dining out. He has been seen travelling inside and outside Queensland. He is well enough to write letters to the editor of the Brisbane Courier-Mail. However, we are advised that he is not well enough to stand trial. Why does it have to come to this point, when the application of the information privacy principles should so thwart the operation of justice as to make a mockery of the judicial system and turn privacy powers into a game of cat and mouse?Why must the only notice of protection of the public interest in the Reith telecard scandal first come to the attention of the public through the media release of the Canberra Times? The telecard scandal went for six months without either rectification or discipline. Had it not been for the excellent journalism of the Canberra Times, we might never have discovered the $50,000 of alleged public theft at all. Now the figure could be even higher. And who knows what other unaccounted rorts, errors, omissions, et cetera, are going on, yet to be discovered?The DPP continues to pursue the scoundrel Christopher Skase, and rightly so, who is seen regularly on television in a wheelchair complete with a mask and oxygen cylinders to give him life support. In other words, the DPP thinks Christopher Skase—a respiratory cripple—is fit enough to stand trial, but not former Senator Malcolm Arthur Colston, who is obviously active. What a joke the DPP is! As I have said, I have been pursing this matter with questions on notice since 15 February this year and it is like drawing blood out of a stone.The IPPs discriminate against the public interest. I have personally witnessed the effects of the application of the IPPs in the context of the many questions I have asked in the Colston affair. We are still left wondering what evidence was relied upon by the director in refusing to pursue prosecution. Only public outcry and humiliation against Minister Reith compelled him to pay back the $50,000. The public demands accountability. The public wants justice. The public abhors politicians who have their snouts in the trough. This bill capitalises on the same information privacy principles that have contaminated public accountability. Whether public or private, this bill must make adjustment for a well-balanced role, through proportionate statutory reserve powers in the hands of government, for people to have access to information when there are public moneys or a matter of public interest at stake. Otherwise, we are creating a world where privacy may deny accountability, against the public interest. This new world of globalisation is precisely what the OECD and the corporate world want—a world where the corporations are increasingly non-accountable to the public. In the Colston affair, it is a government agency—namely, the DPP—that is judge, jury and executioner of the application of the IPPs. In this legislation it will be self-serving industry groups that will be responsible for prosecuting voluntary industry codes of conduct in compliance with the IPPs. Who watches the watchdog? The DPP may sit there and simply deny the information under `privacy' because he believes there is insufficient public interest to release. However, the Attorney-General has on record contradicted him by establishing a test under fresh evidence that should be applied. Moreover, the likely outcome of the DPP's treatment of this matter is that, unless we persist with a line of questioning as I have done over the greater part of this year, the matter would be dead and buried. This seems to be the DPP's approach—let the sleeping dog lie. He is utterly uninterested in prosecuting this cause in the public interest. He just hopes the whole matter will go away. I am fortified to some extent that in today's newspapers he seems to be resurrecting his interest. So too there is a case of deja vu in the matter of the Reith telecard scandal. The government knew of the scandal before it made the front pages of the Canberra Times. However, it chose to do nothing. Not until the public outcry over the wrongness of the act did the government act.What is the likely repercussion of this bill? It is a case of the same application of so-called privacy provisions in the private sphere. For who can ensure that the public interest will not be trammelled by determinations of the Privacy Commissioner or, worse still, an approved code adjudicator? This government is obsessed by privatisation, to the extent that even the adjudicators may be non-accountable persons. With regard to my questions to the Attorney-General, I believe that I have been denied information of significant public interest on matters involving the Commonwealth being defrauded of significant revenue. I am a federal member of parliament and I was denied this information. What hope does the public itself have in dealing directly with the Privacy Commissioner or any other government agency?The IPPs as applied have demonstrated that they do not serve society or even the individual. They ignore collective powers and ensure that fraud against the Commonwealth, abuse of public revenues and other offences against the public interest cannot be prosecuted. In light of these demonstrated examples, I urge the government to make provisions that ensure that a balanced approach to privacy can work within a system of mutual obligation and not a system we currently see of individual exclusivity from public accountability. I oppose the bill. Finally, I draw to the attention of the DPP my question on notice No. 2145 in today's Notice Paper—again to the Attorney-General—in relation to the Colston affair. I reckon he should have a hard look at my questions.09:52:0022363Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—In an age where our privacy is being eroded, in an age of computer technology, there is no more important legislation for us to consider than the privacy legislation that is before us today, the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. As always, this government has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The single most outstanding feature of this legislation is the time it has taken to find its way into this House. As always, the government has demonstrated a reluctance to legislate to protect consumers—and that is a real worry—ordinary Australians who rely on government to ensure that their privacy and wellbeing are protected, ordinary Australians who do not want their personal information widely distributed and used. That is what is happening at the moment. This personal information is being used to set up databases on Australians' likes, dislikes, spending patterns, personal preferences, income and where they live. This information is being collected and stored electronically. We have no protection whatsoever. We do not know what is happening. That is why this legislation is so important. We can ask why it has taken so long to introduce. My answer is that it is because, as always, this government has been stuck in a time warp. It is still back in the 1950s. We have a Prime Minister who has failed to recognise the advent of the information technology age, which is where I see that we are now. I have been led to question whether he can even use a computer. If he could, and if he ever used the Internet, he would see the plethora of web sites that exist and the information that is collected on those web sites. This is bad news for Australia and bad news for all Australians. Not only are we being left behind in the knowledge stakes by failing to ensure that all Australians have the education and the skills they need to embrace the new technology and to meet the challenges of our global economy; but also the government's hesitation has failed to ensure that the privacy of Australians is protected. That is a basic human right. Australians have embraced the Internet. In fact, Australia is one of the countries with the highest Internet usage. Yet, until this legislation is passed, we have no privacy legislation governing information technology and the Internet. Not only is our privacy being interfered with but also our performance in the area of e-commerce is being affected. This legislation seeks to amend the 1988 Privacy Act. The Prime Minister promised before the 1996 federal election that his government would implement a national privacy framework. In 1996 a discussion paper was circulated but by 1997 the government had lost enthusiasm. The Prime Minister decided not to legislate to protect private information in the private sector. Rather, the Prime Minister requested that the Privacy Commissioner liaise with industry bodies with a view to establishing a voluntary self-regulation regime. In the area of e-commerce, self-regulation is not going to work. The motive of the firms that are involved in e-commerce is profit, and to maximise their profit they need to maximise the information they have about us, the consumers—about all Australians. Each company involved in e-commerce will be pushing the parameters to ensure that it has as much information as it can because that means success, profit and a secure future. I am really disappointed that the government failed to show leadership and introduce this legislation earlier. I think the only reason the legislation was finally introduced was that, if the federal government had not done it, the states would have done it. In December 1998 the government announced that it intended to legislate by means of a `light touch' legislative regime. I must say it is rather a light touch, but I will deal with that later. It has taken from December 1998 to get to where we are today. That is a long time. It hardly shows a government that is committed to ensuring that the privacy of Australian citizens is protected. While this legislation is most certainly better than nothing, it certainly does not go far enough. Information technology places the world at our fingertips. It enables us to communicate with each other. We can do our banking via the Internet, shop via the Internet and conduct most of our business via the Internet. I was looking at some information the other day and I came across an article from the Reuters `business briefing'. I highlight one section from it: Privacy issues are complex because they touch on so many areas of our lives and involve such a wide range of activities: corporate data collection, the use of credit card numbers, computer hacking, telemarketing, emailed “spam” advertising, advertising on cell phone displays, and medical data collection, just to name a few. These are just a few of the things mentioned in the article. Along with the convenience of the Internet and e-commerce, there is the danger that our personal details can be used and our privacy abused. Many web sites that Internet users visit have `cookies' attached to them. These cookies save all sorts of information about the person who has visited the site—their personal data, their preferences and many other pieces of information. The user does not know that this information is being collected and stored, nor do they know for what purpose it will be used once it has been collected. The information is most frequently used for marketing, for looking at ways to manipulate our preferences and encourage us to purchase or behave in a certain way. It is not that long ago that we saw the US Acxiom company establish a giant database with information on 15 million Australians. This information was obtained from a number of sources: ninemsn web site, Ticketek and many other sources. That information about 15 million Australians is stored on one gigantic database. Those 15 million Australians did not supply that to Acxiom and they still have no control over that information, but this legislation will not oversee it because it does not relate to access, correction, use and disclosure of information that already exists in databases. Though that information about 15 million Australians is there, those 15 million Australians can do nothing about that. That is one area of real concern about this legislation. I think it should be encompassed in the legislation that data that is already collected can be accessed and corrections and disclosure about the information on the database should be made public.The government's procrastination in introducing this legislation has enabled more databases to be set up and more information to be collected on ordinary Australians, information that they themselves have no access to. The more I read about and consider this legislation, the more I am convinced that the government was reluctant to introduce any privacy legislation at all. This is weak and timid, but it is better than nothing. The government was forced to introduce this legislation because, if it failed to introduce national privacy legislation, Australia would have been faced with six or seven different privacy systems because each state would have had to develop its own legislation, as I mentioned a little earlier. Another reason that I believe the government finally decided to introduce national privacy legislation is that, if it had not, the European Community would not have dealt with Australia because the European Community data protection directive states that countries that do not extend their privacy regime to the private sector would not be able to exchange information with the European Community, or, in this case, the EC with Australia. That would have an enormous impact on Australian business and we would have been extremely disadvantaged. Other countries have already legislated in the area of privacy and many others are upgrading their legislation. In fact, at this stage even New Zealand has in place privacy legislation.I also have some concerns with respect to the enforcement of this legislation. The legislation gives the Privacy Commissioner the power to recommend compensation for privacy breaches, but there is no provision in the legislation for civil penalties to punish corporations which engage in serious breaches. To be quite honest, I do not think that is good enough. Whilst I believe this is very weak legislation and legislation that has been introduced far too late, it is better than nothing. I refer to an article that appeared in the Age of 6 June this year. It highlights the need for privacy legislation and says:The drive to extract greater profit from budding e-commerce enterprises is starting to backfire as the online community expresses concern about privacy. The article points out that today the great threat of surveillance comes not so much from governments and their agencies, as predicted by George Orwell, as from surveillance by online businesses and corporations in the private sector. I hope that I have created a picture of that in what I have said today. It further says:Big Brother might be an overhyped fiction, but e-commerce's Little Brother—in the form of data-mining, CRM, data-matching and profiling—is a bigger threat.The article points out that too often we find ourselves handing over personal information about our private lives through surveys, membership applications, contracts and online forums. It is frightening and upsetting to think that here we are today in this House finally considering legislation that should have been looked at a long time ago. As the Age article rightly points out, Big Brother is no longer the government; rather, it is the private sector through online business and corporations in the enormous amount of data that is collected. This data details who we are, what we like, what we dislike and many other things about us—things that we often like to think are quite private. This data can predict the way we will act and goes to the core of who we are as people. This needs to have some controls placed on it. This data can be used to influence our choices and control our lives. I encourage the government to accept the opposition's amendments and to give this legislation some real teeth. The government has already failed the Australian people by not recognising the need for privacy legislation. This has led to missed opportunities for business and loss of privacy for the many millions of Australians whose information has been stored in databases without their knowledge. I am pleased that this government has now introduced legislation into this House, but it was far too long coming and that certainly is not good enough.10:07:0022366Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—It goes without saying that privacy is under more challenge and under greater threat than at any time in our history. Modern technology enables a sophisticated range of options for those who would pry into the personal and business lives of others for commercial gain, for political advantage or for other more devious means, perhaps blackmail. So it is encouraging to study the second reading speech on this bill, the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, where the Attorney-General states:For the first time, Australians can be confident that information held about them by private sector organisations will be stored, used and disclosed in a fair and appropriate way. For the first time, Australians will have a right to gain access to that information and a right to correct it if it is wrong. Especially in electronic commerce, the Attorney-General rightly states that he has no doubt businesses which demonstrate they are committed to protecting the privacy of their customers will gain a competitive advantage. But I have concerns that this legislation relies too much on self-regulation rather than on mandated codes with strong enforcement and penalties.It is encouraging to see that the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information, forming the basis of this legislation, were developed in a consultative process by the Privacy Commissioner with business, consumers and other stakeholders. It is good to see that the national privacy principles will deal with health information, one of the most personal and delicate areas of privacy. But on closer reading it is apparent that, despite recommendations from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, there are a large number of exceptions that serve to deny individuals access to their health records. It is encouraging to see the bill providing for private sector organisations to develop privacy codes of practice and that, where such codes do not have a complaints mechanism, the Privacy Commissioner will play that role. But there are many documented concerns that have not been addressed, including recommendations from government members of committees in both houses.The House committee noted that the need for a small business exemption had been questioned, and there had been criticism of the turnover threshold of $3 million or less being, as they believed, an inappropriate measure in the context of privacy. In some ways the government has addressed this by a provision that small businesses deemed to be a risk to privacy can be brought within the legislation where that is necessary and in the public interest. There is also an opt-in/opt-out provision for small business, but in the government amendments there will be no ability to opt out so as to avoid any investigation of privacy breaches. That is a good thing.However, it is sobering to note the evidence presented to the House committee by the Australian Privacy Charter Council that `something in the order of 93 per cent plus of all businesses would effectively be exempted under the definition and provisions in the bill'. The charter council argued that `there is nothing inherent in size that makes organisations more or less privacy invasive' and points to private detectives or debt collection as examples. Again, in e-commerce there would appear to be wide scope for such invasive activities by organisations with far less than the $3 million turnover. Indeed, the ABS statistics show that over 98 per cent of small businesses under its guidelines would fall under the $3 million threshold. The government uses the argument that it wishes to protect small business from unnecessary cost. That is an admirable ideal, but we are dealing with a serious issue and if individuals' rights are at risk of abuse, whether it be from the largest bank or the smallest Net based operator, they should all be under the cover of this legislation. Indeed, in her minority Senate report Senator Stott Despoja says: The lack of substantial compliance costs or other significant difficulties associated with small business may indicate why most countries that have implemented privacy regimes in the recent past do not have similar exemptions for small business.I look forward with interest to the regulation that is devised to bring privacy-risk small business under the umbrella of this proposed law. But, at the end of the day, this should not be the subject of regulation; it should be built into the law now. For example, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and the European Union have all enacted similar privacy regimes to that proposed in the bill, but none of them has similar exemptions for small business.Elsewhere, the government has not accepted a recommendation from the House committee that employee records be included under the cover of this legislation. Instead, the government states that the protection of employee records is more properly a matter for workplace relations legislation. I am unconvinced. The ACTU is also unconvinced and believes the Workplace Relations Act certainly does not deal adequately with privacy issues. The ACTU argument was backed up by the Australian Privacy Charter Council, the Investment and Financial Services Association and the Privacy Commissioner. The majority Senate committee report, at paragraph 3.20, says it is yet to be persuaded from available evidence that workplace relations or state and territory legislation `provides adequate protection of employee records from their access and disclosure'. This is one area of the bill where an amendment appears necessary.While the exemption for the media appears to have widespread support, I place on the record my concerns that individual privacy is under constant threat from many media practices. The pressure for ratings, which is affecting and infecting judgment at the ABC as well, brings many opportunities to invade personal space. While I would in no way support legislation that impedes the necessary right of free speech and investigative journalism, I do not think the self-regulatory codes of conduct go anywhere far enough in protecting the vulnerable from exploitation. The code needs to be mandatory, overseen by a media council with teeth, and suspensions and fines of individuals and licensees need to be part of such a code, which itself is built into media legislation. The ALP minority report from the Senate inquiry points out that this bill does not strictly cover small business, employers, journalists—indeed, the media per se—members of parliament and big business if it develops its own code. That report suggests the legislation has been framed from the point of view of the organisation which must afford privacy rather than the person whose privacy is threatened. I must say I agree. I wonder, though, whether the ALP would be agreeable to political parties being included if the legislation covered issues such as unlimited access to electoral roll data and telephone polling.Under the exemptions provided in the bill, the elector information databases currently maintained by the major political parties would remain unregulated. Not only are acts and practices of MPs exempted; so too are those of contractors and volunteers working for registered political parties or political representatives, but not those of nominated candidates. The New South Wales Privacy Commissioner says he is concerned about the exemption of political parties from the legislation and says it is inappropriate for such organisations to be exempt from the same practices and principles that are required for the wider community. In a former life, the New South Wales Privacy Commissioner was a prominent member of parliament and he brings a wide understanding of this profession to his judgment on that matter. He is concerned about the exemption of political parties. I suppose it follows that well-worn pattern such as the one we have with parliamentary superannuation, with one rule for the masses and another for us. Let me raise some other concerns highlighted in the minority report from the Democrats in the Senate. The e-commerce provisions in the bill—which surely are one of the most essential roles this legislation will perform—`fail to give consumers the security they expect', according to the report. As for international obligations, despite the Attorney-General's second reading statement that `important trading partners are requiring an assurance that information will be given appropriate protection', the submission to the Senate inquiry from the European Commission says:... we envisage the exclusion of small business would be problematical, since it would be very difficult in practice to identify small business operators before exporting data to Australia.It is important to note the conclusions drawn in the Bills Digest, whose research experts believe this parliament:... has a complex task in assuring itself and the community that the Bill has struck, or as amended, will strike the right balance.It goes on:The parliament might consider whether the broad exemptions found in the Bill that relate to employee records, the media, small business, and existing databases have tipped the balance in favour of business at the expense of individuals' rights to privacy.I am also concerned about aspects of this bill related to tenants or, indeed, the non- protection of their rights to privacy. I notice that the opposition, in its minority report in the Senate, details its concerns about the exclusion of tenancy databases. The report correctly states that information on those databases, where incorrect, has the capacity to seriously harm an individual's capacity to access one of the most basic human needs—housing. The report says:Where an increasing number of Australians are looking to rental accommodation for their long-term housing needs, it is imperative that individuals be equipped with an enforceable right to access information which is held about them on tenancy databases and to ensure this information is correct.I can think of one constituent and his concern about silent phone numbers given to police for investigations that have impacted on his rights to present and future rental accommodation—a campaign which he has been running for some time. I wish to mention briefly the situation regarding other telecommunications and privacy matters. Recently, I had cause to write to the federal Privacy Commissioner about several cases involving privacy issues and telecommunications suppliers, including Telstra. The commissioner informed me that, since Telstra is an incorporated company, it falls outside the definition of `agency' and therefore is not subject to the information privacy principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988. Even though the organisation is still 51 per cent publicly owned, it is not subject to the existing legislation. That perplexed many people who ran into problems, which I will detail in a moment. While the bill before us ostensibly amends part 6 of the Telecommunications Act to recognise the pre-eminence of the Privacy Act and the role of the Privacy Commissioner, it does so:... without diminishing the integrity of the current telecommunications self--regulatory regime.That regime, dealt with through industry codes and industry standards, includes the protection of personal information, the intrusive use of telecommunications by carriers or service providers, the monitoring or recording of communications, calling number display and provision of directory products. In the current competitive climate of telecommunications, I believe these industry codes are being breached, at least in spirit, and I believe in intent too, by unconscionable conduct that is an invasion of privacy, and I see nothing in this bill that will properly address it. For instance, an 85-year-old man in Bathurst, hard of hearing, is rung by Primus Telecom, who he thinks is Telstra, once Telecom—he has not caught up with the fact that Telecom is now Telstra, and he thinks that Primus Telecom is something to do with Telstra—seeking his business. He is a bit confused: `I thought I was with Telstra.' Anyway, they give him the spiel. He agrees to a special deal, which he still thinks is coming from Telecom/Telstra, and then finds the account arrives in the name of a provider he has never heard of and that his Telstra account has been chopped off. The provisions of part 6 allow the Australian Communications Authority to request development of a telecommunications industry code dealing with privacy. As the explanatory memorandum confirms, `no such power exists for the Privacy Commissioner'. However, while the bill does set in place a relationship between the Privacy Commissioner and the ACA to develop, strengthen or revoke industry standards, I believe these standards need to be mandated in legislation. Let me detail some more instances which I believe breach those industry standards. One Lithgow area telephone customer claims One.Tel changed over his phone without his or his wife's knowledge. They had received a call from One.Tel, asked for literature to be sent—they said, `Okay, send the stuff in the mail'—but had signed nothing and gave no verbal agreements. Their account was switched from Telstra to One.Tel and the first they knew about it was a letter, with their surname mispelt, congratulating them on the switch.In another case, One.Tel claimed a 93-year-old Lithgow woman had given permission to switch her account from Telstra to One.Tel. She denies it. Somehow One.Tel claimed it had obtained the lady's birth date and bank account number for a direct debit. When asked by a relative to give the number, the bank account number given was not the woman's—which begs the question: whose number was it? A check with a Telstra regional complaints team revealed that others had been hassled by this organisation as well, mostly the elderly, thinking they were dealing with Telstra—so Telstra was copping the flak as well. The old lady is 93 and has been with Telecom and Telstra for 50 years. She had no intention of ever changing, yet she was put through this marketing rigmarole. And, yes, the whole episode, right from the initial misrepresented or misunderstood phone call, in my book is an invasion of privacy. The similarity of names—still using terms like `Telecom' and `Tel' in new company names—is part of a process that contributes to this deception—often, it seems, of old people. I do not know that the provisions that have been put in place in this bill or that the self-regulatory emphasis will in any way adequately deal with such situations.In another case, a constituent claims she received a call from Telstra questioning her about her calling habits and why she had switched to a new carrier. The constituent's particular concern was that Telstra was using information about her call history to form the basis of questions. She regarded this, rightly or wrongly, as a breach of her privacy. On raising this with Telstra, I received a reply that Telstra—and no doubt other carriers—conducts its business in accordance with the industry privacy code, which is based on the national privacy principles. I really wonder, with the pressure to maintain clients on the one hand and the need to win clients on the other, whether the carriers in the market can be trusted to do the right thing, whether indeed the industry privacy code is worth anything at all. From the degree of concern I have seen in my own electorate about the sales practices of some of the newer players in the market, especially with older customers, I have grave doubts about that code.The issue of privacy is an important and growing one in Australia. I well remember the fierce debate over the ill-fated Australia Card in the 1980s and the concerns of ordinary Australians about the intrusion of faceless government bureaucracy into their lives. That concern has only increased with the passage of intervening years and the computer driven technology that offers so much but that can intrude so much. The latest development is genetic engineering, with the mapping of the human genome and all the issues of privacy and the integrity of human data that it involves. That issue is not dealt with in this bill, and Senator Stott Despoja quite rightly points to the urgent need for legislation to protect Australians' genetic privacy. In 1996, the government released a discussion paper on privacy to meet an election commitment that Australian privacy legislation would be developed in line with other policies worldwide. The legislation was supposed to bind the private sector to the international privacy principles that exist for the public sector. However, by 1997 the Prime Minister had backed away from this, deciding instead on a voluntary self-regulatory scheme for the private sector. It is suspected that the Australian Bankers Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had something to do with that. So we have what has been called a `light touch' bill, which does not aggressively or adequately address many privacy issues of concern. The member for Shortland, prior to my speaking, was right when she described this bill as somewhat weak and timid but better than nothing. The bill does need strengthening in my humble estimation. I do not know if the government is of a mind to accept amendments, but I will support any moved here or in the other place that attend to the concerns I have outlined.10:25:0022370Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to sum up the debate on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. I thank the numerous members who have participated for their valuable contributions to the debate on the bill. Australians have embraced the information technology revolution and the opportunities that the increasingly borderless commercial world has to offer. Advances in information technology have the potential to enrich our lives, work and wellbeing. Those same advances have the potential to erode our privacy. The privacy of personal information is of critical importance in an era when information is moved around the globe with the stroke of a keyboard. Clearly, privacy is an issue that must be addressed. On this, I think that both the government and the opposition agree. The amendments proposed by the opposition show that there is clearly disagreement between the government and the opposition on how this ought to occur.The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 implements the government's commitment to promote a light touch, coregulatory approach to privacy protection. The bill establishes a coregulatory framework that is responsive to both business and consumer needs. It has been drafted in such a way that it can be applied in both the conventional and electronic environments. The provisions in the bill represent an appropriate and workable balance between privacy interests and other important, competing public interests. The government's response to the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs following their inquiry into the bill finetunes that balance. By comparison, the bill as proposed to be amended by the opposition would be quite different. It would be far more prescriptive and heavy-handed. It would not have the support of business and industry. It would not strike an appropriate balance between all interested parties, as the bill currently does.Concerns have been expressed about the 12-month delay in the commencement of the legislation following royal assent. This delay is based on a realistic approach to the implementation of this significant legislation. This is not legislation amending existing rights and responsibilities; it is creating rights and responsibilities that have not existed before in Australia. Reassessment by an organisation of its process for handling personal information will take time, as will the development and approval of privacy codes. The government is of the view that 12 months is a reasonable time frame within which to expect organisations to implement systems and practices to ensure that they can comply with this legislation when it comes into operation.The exemption for small business is based on the premise that not all private sector organisations pose the same risk to privacy. Many small businesses do not have significant holdings of personal information. They may have customer records that they use for their own business purposes; however, they do not sell or otherwise deal with customer information in a way that poses a high risk to the privacy interests of those customers. However, the government recognises that there are some small businesses, or acts and practices of small businesses, that pose a higher risk to privacy than others and should be caught by the privacy obligations set out in the bill. The bill makes it very clear that not all businesses with an annual turnover of $3 million or less can take advantage of the exemption. Small businesses that provide health services and hold health information are one example of this special category. Small businesses that trade in personal information are another. It is for this reason that small business operators that provide health services and hold health information, that trade in personal information or that are contracted to provide a service to the Commonwealth will be covered by the legislation. I note that the opposition is strongly of the view that tenancy databases should be covered by this legislation and should not be able to take advantage of the small business exemption. The government does not accept the opposition's position. In doing so, the government is not saying that the issues surrounding the use of tenancy databases are not significant or that the acts and practices concerning such databases should not be covered by the bill. The government believes that the bill as it is covers tenancy databases. Organisations that avail themselves of the use of tenancy databases rely on a flow of personal information to and from organisations that maintain these databases. Where this flow of personal information occurs between organisations for a benefit, service or advantage, such organisations would not be able to take advantage of the small business exemption in any event.The government does not believe there is sufficient justification for singling out those databases from the small business exemption. The current set-up of the bill is that all businesses are covered unless they are specifically exempted from the bill. To expressly refer to a particular industry that is already covered by the bill would be contrary to the manner in which the bill is set up and it is unnecessary. If tenancy databases prove to be a problem, the bill allows for regulations to be made prescribing small business operators or the acts or practices of small business operators that will have the effect of bringing those prescribed small business operators or the prescribed acts and practices of small business operators within the scope of the regime.The government has accepted the House of Representatives committee recommendation to include a mechanism in the bill to allow a small business to voluntarily opt in to coverage by the legislation. Such a mechanism is included in the amendments moved by the government. Under these amendments, a small business that wishes to voluntarily opt in to the legislative scheme, for commercial reasons or otherwise, would be able to ask the Privacy Commissioner to include the business in a public register set up for this purpose by the commissioner. Where market forces dictate that a small business operator ought to be covered, it is likely that this mechanism would be used by that small business operator. For example, a small business may take up this opportunity if it has a business relationship with larger businesses that are subject to the legislation and those larger businesses insist on their trading partners being subject to the same privacy rules.The bill provides that an act done, or a practice engaged in, by an employer is exempt from the operation of the bill if the act or practice is directly related to a current or former relationship between the employer and the individual or an employee record held by the employer relating to the individual. Clearly, this does not give employers the ability to do whatever they like with employee records. The employer must be dealing with the employee records in the context of a current or former employment relationship for the exemption to apply. This means that there is no scope for an employer to sell or otherwise take commercial advantage of the personal information contained in the employee records it holds. The regulation of the employee records is an area that intersects with a number of state and territory laws on workplace relations, minimum employment conditions, workers compensation and occupational health and safety. To attempt to deal with employee records comprehensively in the bill would result in an unacceptable level of interference with those state and territory laws and create a confusing mosaic of obligations. This is an area that is better dealt with in the context of workplace relations reform than privacy regulation. The government recognises that the Australian public consider their health records to be particularly sensitive. The bill takes these sensitivities into account. In developing the legislation, the government has carefully considered the views of the health sector, health consumers, insurers and other organisations that hold health information. The bill's health provisions are sensible and workable. Appropriate and adequate safeguards have been included to protect the privacy of health information of Australians. The bill provides additional protections in relation to the use and disclosure of health information, as such information is clearly considered by the community to be particularly sensitive. For example, national privacy principle 10 limits the ways that sensitive information, including health information, may be collected. As a further example, national privacy principle 2 prohibits the use of sensitive information, such as health information, for direct marketing purposes. Significantly, for the first time, Australians will have the right to seek access to and to correct health records held about them by private sector organisations. Subject to certain exceptions, such as where providing access would pose a serious threat to the life or health of any individual, organisations must provide individuals with access to information held about them. The government plans to work closely with the office of the federal Privacy Commissioner and key stakeholders to develop the implementation guidelines to ensure the appropriate handling of what we would all agree is highly sensitive information.The members for Barton, Gellibrand, Maribyrnong and Chisholm have raised the issue of the application of this bill to existing databases, particularly those national privacy principles concerning the use and disclosure and access and correction rights which the government has decided should apply only to information collected after the legislation commences. There are good reasons why the government has not applied these privacy principles to information already collected and in the possession of a private sector organisation at the date this legislation comes into operation. These are largely concerned with the fact that, until such time as the legislation is in effect, the organisation does not have to comply with the collection principles. It may not be possible to retrospectively discern in relation to existing information what were the primary and secondary purposes for collection. Organisations were not required to inform people at the time the information was collected about the intended uses of their information and to whom it would be disclosed. For the government to require organisations to provide access to personal information already in their possession at the date this legislation commences operation would impose an unreasonable burden on the private sector. Of course, the government is not saying that an organisation cannot provide access; it is just saying that it will not require organisations to provide access. An organisation can always provide it if it chooses to do so. An organisation will, in relation to personal information collected before the date on which the bill comes into effect, be required to take reasonable steps to make sure that the personal information it uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up to date. Such organisations will also be required to be open about what sorts of personal information they hold and what purposes information is used for, including having clearly expressed policies on their management of personal information. They will have to take reasonable steps to protect all personal information in their possession from misuse and loss and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure. They will also have to take reasonable steps to destroy or permanently remove identifying information if it is no longer needed for any purpose.Finally, if transferring personal information about an individual to someone who is in a foreign country, such organisations will have to comply with the principles regarding transborder dataflows. After the bill takes effect, organisations that hold existing databases of personal information will need to comply with all aspects of the legislation when they update that information, including those aspects relating to collection, access, use and disclosure. In the information industry, the currency of personal information is crucial. This means that, over time, the complete set of principles will come to apply to that updated information. The bill allows a person to make a complaint if they think a private sector organisation has handled their personal information inappropriately. The complaint handling process is designed for people to have their complaints dealt with simply, quickly, at low cost and without red tape. It is designed to ensure that most complaints can be resolved through conciliation and mediation rather than through an adversarial court process.The process for investigating complaints is based on that which is applied and has worked well in the Commonwealth public sector since 1989. In the first instance, complaints are to be directed to the organisation concerned. If the person and the organisation are unable to resolve the matter between themselves, the person can request that an independent person investigate the complaint. Where the organisation concerned is subject to an approved privacy code that includes a mechanism for handling complaints, the independent investigator will be an adjudicator nominated under the code. Where the organisation is not subject to an approved code, the federal Privacy Commissioner will handle the complaint. Where the independent investigator finds that the organisation has interfered with the person's privacy, the investigator has a number of options, including making an order that the organisation redress any loss or damage or pay compensation to the person. If the order is not complied with, the individual may commence proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Service or the Federal Court for an order to enforce the determination.Where the Privacy Commissioner determines that an organisation has interfered with the privacy of a person, the commissioner has a number of options available to address the issue. The bill provides that an adjudicator under an approved privacy code must have the same options to make declarations in relation to privacy breaches as the Privacy Commissioner. The options available to the Privacy Commissioner and, when the private sector provisions commence, to a code adjudicator, include making a declaration that the organisation should not repeat or continue the offending conduct, should perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress the loss or damage suffered by the person concerned, and/or should pay a specified amount by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by the person concerned. Loss or damage can include injury to the person's feelings or humiliation suffered by that individual. The penalties for privacy infringements by a private sector organisation are the same as those that currently apply in respect of the Commonwealth public sector. These penalties have been applied by the Privacy Commissioner since the Privacy Act came into force over 11 years ago, and they have worked effectively.A key feature of the bill is the ability of organisations to develop their own codes regulating the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information. The national privacy principles will also provide minimum benchmarks for the development of privacy codes under the bill. However, private sector organisations are free to adopt higher standards if considered appropriate. The national privacy principles set out in the bill will operate where a business or other organisation chooses not to adopt its own privacy code.Freedom of political communication is vitally important to Australia's democracy. It is important to preserve the operation of the electoral and political process in Australia. The exemption in the bill for political parties registered under electoral laws, and for acts and practices concerning the political process, is designed to encourage that freedom. I note that the European Union directive on the protection of personal data recognises the need for political parties operating in a democratic system to be free to compile data on people's political opinion. The exemption will not derogate from the objectives of the bill. The government acknowledges that there is a clear public interest in the free flow of information to the Australian public and that the media has an important role in facilitating that flow. Quite clearly, however, there is also a public interest in ensuring that media organisations handle personal information about individual Australians in a responsible and appropriate way. The government's amendments to the media exemption seek to ensure that an appropriate balance is found between these important public interests. These amendments also aim to address recommendation 9 of the House of Representatives committee report on the privacy bill. The effect of the amendments is to require a media organisation to meet an additional condition before its acts and practices in the course of journalism are exempt under the privacy bill. The additional condition is that a media organisation publicly commit to observing published standards that deal with privacy at the time it engages in an act or practice in the course of journalism.Many media organisations already subscribe to published codes of practice that deal with privacy developed by industry bodies that represent them. The additional condition will not require a media organisation to subscribe to a privacy code approved by the Privacy Commissioner in order to benefit from the exemption. These amendments are therefore consistent with the government's commitment to promoting effective self-regulation and coregulation of the information and communications industry while at the same time encouraging the responsible handling of personal information by that industry. I would like to go back to the national privacy principles, which are the core of this bill. When the decision was made to legislate, the government considered that the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information developed by the former Privacy Commissioner were an appropriate basis for the legislation. The national privacy principles regulate how and when an organisation can collect personal information. The principles also restrict what organisations can do with personal information after it has been collected. The general rule is that personal information should only be used or disclosed in a way that is consistent with people's expectations or where it is in the public interest to use it or disclose it in that way.The national privacy principles also provide strict guidelines for the collection of information that the community considers to be particularly sensitive, such as health information, criminal records, political opinions or religious beliefs. Significantly, the principles will give Australians the right to access records containing personal information about them and to seek to have those records corrected if they are wrong. To cover the costs associated with providing such access, businesses are permitted to impose a charge for access, so long as it is not excessive. The national privacy principles in the bill are intended to provide a basis for business to develop practices to ensure that the privacy of Australians' personal information is protected. They are minimum standards but are workable, flexible and comprehensive. They have been accepted by business and industry, and they provide a sound basis for legislation.There comes a point at which the talking has to cease, decisions have to be made and action has to be taken. There is no denying that this bill involves competing public and private interests. Tough decisions have been made to strike an appropriate balance between all of these interests. This bill is a realistic reflection of the various competing interests. It will provide comprehensive privacy benchmarks for the handling of personal information by the private sector and will ensure that Australia is well placed to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by electronic commerce. It is now time to stop talking and to act to ensure that privacy standards for the handling of personal information by private sector organisations in Australia are enshrined in legislation. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.22375Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:46:0022375McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—It may assist the House if I indicate that I propose to move some 25 opposition amendments to the bill. To facilitate consideration of the bill, I therefore seek leave to move a number of opposition amendments together. The course of action I propose is to move opposition amendments 3, 4, 11 and 12 together; opposition amendments 8 and 9 together; opposition amendments 17, 18, 19 and 25 together; and opposition amendments 20, 21, 22 and 23 together. I propose to move the remainder of the opposition amendments separately. I also have a number of amendments to proposed government amendments, but I will deal with those later in the debate. I now move:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 8 to 13), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) Subject to this section, this Act commences on 1 July 2001.This is a simple amendment. It would amend proposed section 2 of the bill, which currently provides that the date of commencement of the act will be the first day after the end of the period of 12 months, beginning on the day on which the act receives royal assent, or otherwise 1 July 2001. Clearly we have gone beyond 1 July 2000. If this bill is enacted, it would not commence until at least 12 months hence. So, assuming the bill is passed through the Senate, which we sincerely hope it will be by the end of the year, it would not commence until the end of next year. To put that in its context, the act probably would not commence until after the next election. Labor say that that is unacceptable. It is our view that effective privacy protection is needed now.There has been a history of delay on the part of the government in bringing forward effective private sector privacy regulation. In particular, in March 1997 the government withdrew from the field entirely in terms of a legislative response in this very important area. These national privacy principles have been in place since 1998, although it must be said that it has been on a voluntary basis. Nonetheless, the key principles underlining this bill, which give the national privacy principles limited legislative backing, have been in the public domain since at least December of last year. Labor's amendment will ensure that privacy protection is put in place with effect from 1 July 2001, which will give a good six months lead-in time. We say that that is the earliest date contemplated by the bill and should appropriately become the date of commencement of the act if the bill is passed.10:49:0022375Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment. As the member for Barton said, I accept that there are some organisations that have been conscious of privacy concerns for some time. There are some enterprises—and even sectoral organisations—that have put in place codes of conduct, some of which are based on the national privacy principles, but it is not true of all business. An example of that was the sudden discovery by the media at the end of last year that media organisations would be subject to the privacy bill, which resulted in a clamour in the media to slow down the headlong rush to put the bill into legislation after three years of preparation.The 12-month lead-time is essential for business to get ready for the legislation. Organisations will need to reassess their practices and procedures and to develop new ones that comply with the legislation. Organisations may also want to develop their own privacy codes for submission to and approval by the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commission will also need this 12-month period to educate business and consumers to develop guidelines and to assist business with the development of privacy codes. In seeking to cut short the time that organisations have to comply with the new legislation, the opposition displays a lack of appreciation of what good privacy practice entails. This legislation would come into force quicker if the opposition were to assist with its passage through the parliament.Amendment negatived.10:51:0022375McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 20), at the end of paragraph (3), add: ; and (iv) provide individuals with mechanisms by which they can obtain appropriate redress for interferences with privacy; and (v) provide the Privacy Commissioner with the means to monitor and prevent the systematic abuse of privacy by organisations.This amendment is also a simple amendment. It proposes an amendment to the objects of the bill to include additional objects. The first object is to provide individuals with mechanisms by which they can obtain appropriate redress for interferences with privacy and the second object is to provide the Privacy Commissioner with the means to monitor and prevent the systematic abuse of privacy by organisations. As we have said in the course of the second reading debate, the government's bill falls short of these two important measures of effective privacy regulation from the point of view of Australian citizens. Our amendments, along with our other amendments that I will shortly be moving, seek to address this by boosting the powers of the Privacy Commissioner and giving the bill more `effect', more grunt, from the point of view of its ability to protect the interests of private citizens.10:52:0022376Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment. The objects clause in the bill currently describes the objects as being to establish a national scheme for the appropriate handling of personal information in a way that: (i) meets Australia's international privacy obligations; (ii) recognises individuals' interests in protecting their privacy; and (iii) recognises important human rights that compete with privacy. The opposition's proposed amendments are much more detailed in nature and come close to being functions rather than objects. They are unnecessary as additions to the objects clause are they are already encompassed by the broad objects statements in the current objects clause. They add nothing of substance and in fact have the further difficulty that they contemplate amendments that the government will be opposing.Amendment negatived.10:53:0022376McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (lines 8 to 26), omit the definition of employee record, substitute:employee record, in relation to an employee, means a record of personal information relating to the employment of the employee other than an exempt employee record. Examples of personal information relating to the employment of the employee are health information about the employee and personal information about all or any of the following: (a) the terms and conditions of employment of the employee; (b) the employee's personal and emergency contact details; (c) the employee's performance or conduct; (d) the employee's salary or wages; (e) the employee's membership of a professional or trade association; (f) the employee's trade union membership; (g) the employee's recreation, long service, sick, personal, maternity, paternity or other leave; (h) the employee's taxation, banking or superannuation affairs. (4) Schedule 1, after item 13, page 7 (after line 22), insert:13A Subsection 6(1) Insert:exempt employee record, in relation to an employee, means a record of personal information relating to the employment of the employee and relating to: (a) the engagement, training, disciplining or resignation of the employee; (b) the termination of the employment of the employee; or (c) the employee's performance or conduct.(11) Schedule 1, item 42, page 23 (line 19), omit “Employee records”, substitute “Exempt employee records”.(12) Schedule 1, item 42, page 23 (lines 25 to 26), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) an exempt employee record held by the organisation and relating to the individual. These amendments relate to the concept of employee records. In moving these amendments we recognise that there is certainly a balance to be achieved in protecting the right of privacy of private citizens but not adding unnecessary burdens to businesses, whether they be small or big businesses. However, there is a range of material that is not relevant to the employment relationships, such as an employee's health records, family records and even the payroll deductions that they may have on a weekly basis, either to a trade union, to a particular credit facility or some other organisation. These things clearly are not contemplated within the normal understanding of employee records and indeed are not contemplated in relevant state industrial laws, albeit there may be some protections in state privacy laws. Our amendments are intended to implement the unanimous recommendations of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which we note the government has rejected. The House committee was a strong committee in terms of those members of this House that sit on the committee. That committee recommended that the definition of `employee record' be amended and a new definition of `exempt employee record' be inserted. Employee records as currently defined are entirely exempt from the national privacy principles. Labor's amendments will give employee records the protection of the NPPs but will leave exempt employee records outside the scheme of the act. That is, those exempt employee records would be records in relation to the personal information of the employee, consisting of details in respect of the engagement, training, disciplining or resigning of the employee or the termination of employment of the employee or the employee's performance or conduct. That exemption accords with the community's understanding of what we would normally be talking about when we are talking about employee information in the hands of an employer. Our exemption of this particular matter would remove the employer's obligations under the Privacy Act in respect of those sorts of things but it would give protection in respect of those things which I think fair-minded Australians would say are not commonly understood as being relevant to the employment relationship such as, as I have said, health information, family information or even payroll deduction information. The House committee recognised that it would be inappropriate to treat these records like other employee records and accordingly made the recommendation which Labor has accepted. Again, we would call on the government to reconsider their rejection of that committee recommendation.10:57:0022377Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Amendments (3), (4), (11) and (12), as the member for Barton has pointed out, relate to employee records and their exemption from the privacy regime contemplated under the bill. The bill currently defines employee records expansively. Amendment (3) amends the definition of employee record in the bill by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition. It also appears the opposition intended to delete paragraph (e) but it seems to have been retained through a drafting error. Amendment (4) inserts a new definition to the bill, `exempt employee record'. An exempt employee record is defined as a record of personal information relating to the employment of the employee and relating to an employee's engagement, training, discipline, resignation, termination, performance and conduct. In effect, this definition consists of the elements of the definition of employee record deleted by amendment (3). Amendment (11) changes the heading of subsection 7B(3) from `Employee records' to `Exempt employee records' and then amendment (12) amends subsection 7B(3) so that the acts and practices of organisations would be exempt in relation to `exempt employee records' rather than the more expansive `employee records'. This has the effect of significantly narrowing the extent of the exemption.The amendments, I would suggest, are not new. Similar suggestions were made, as the member for Barton mentioned, by the House committee in its report on the bill. The reasons the government gave for not accepting those suggestions then are equally sound today. The regulation of employee records is a matter that is best dealt with in the workplace relations context. In addition, the regulation of employee records intersects with state and territory legislation and there is a real danger that if we impose excessive privacy regulation on employee records we unintentionally create a confusing and mismatched set of obligations. It is not in anybody's interests to place such a burden on employers. The opposition does not seem to have made up its mind whether an employee's performance or conduct should be covered by the bill. This may be a drafting error, but it reflects perhaps the haste with which the opposition amendments have been put together and the lateness of the time at which they have been provided to the government—a subject that has been dealt with by a number of members of the government in the second reading debate. The employee's performance and conduct reference is listed under the definitions of both `employee record' and `exempt employee record'. If the opposition amendments were accepted, the only types of employee records that would be exempt from the bill would be those relating to an employee's engagement, training, discipline, resignation, termination, performance and conduct. There are clearly many other types of information which could be included on an employee record. That information would all be subject to the provisions of the bill if these amendments were accepted, imposing unnecessary administrative and financial burdens on Australian employers. If one contemplates what would be required in segregating from one record or one set of records those matters relating to engagement, training, discipline, resignation, termination, performance and conduct, and leaving the others out, one can see that it would just be a nightmare for employers if the government were to accept these amendments.Amendments negatived.11:01:0022378McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment (5):(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (lines 29 to 35), omit definition of journalism, substitute:journalism means the practice of collecting, preparing for dissemination or disseminating the following material for the purpose of making it available to the public: (a) material having the character of news, current affairs or a documentary; (b) material consisting of commentary or opinion on, or analysis of, news, current affairs or a documentary.This amendment relates to the definition of journalism. The government seeks to delete the definition of journalism from the bill, but in our view that is unsatisfactory. It is our argument that reverting to a plain English definition of journalism will create great uncertainty as to which acts are covered and which are not. Labor's preference is to retain the definition of journalism but to confine it more narrowly than the definition which appears in the current bill. Our chief concern is that the definition as it currently stands is too broad and provides too great a scope for the journalism exemption to be abused by unscrupulous operators who should not rightfully obtain the benefit of the exemption. For instance, as referred to during the second reading debate, there is an argument about the information contained in the CrimeNet database, which is essentially information about citizens' convictions according to records researched by the CrimeNet organisation. Insofar as that organisation is providing the information over the Internet, it may well be the case that that organisation would fall within the journalism exemption if the government's proposals are allowed to remain as they are proposed. Under our amendment, on the other hand, journalism will mean:... the practice of collecting, preparing for dissemination or disseminating the following material for the purpose of making it available to the public: (a) material having the character of news, current affairs or a documentary; (b) material consisting of commentary or opinion on, or analysis of, news, current affairs or a documentary.That would distinguish, for instance, the CrimeNet situation, which is simply providing information about people. By omitting reference to the very broad concept of information, Labor's amendment is narrower and more accurately reflects the common view of what journalism is. Labor will also support the amendments to be moved by the government, which confine the exemption to those organisations which publicly commit to privacy standards—provided, however, we say, that the Privacy Commissioner is given a role in considering and approving those standards. 23:04:0022379Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment. As the member for Barton has indicated, the government proposes that the definition of journalism be deleted altogether, and government amendment (2) will be moved to that effect. On that basis, to amend the definition would be, in our view, inappropriate. It is appropriate, in our view, to rely on the common law definition. This will confine the exemption to commonly understood activities of journalism. The media exemption was the subject of intense negotiation with media organisations after they realised that they were going to be subject to the bill. Further changes to it would need to be subject to additional consultation. The government much prefers the term to be left undefined rather than fiddling with the edges and, as a consequence, raising further questions about its meaning.Amendment negatived.11:05:0022379McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment (6):(6) Schedule 1, after item 22, page 9 (after line 23), insert:22A Subsection 6(1) Repeal the definition of personal information, substitute:Personal information means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual: (a) whose identity is apparent from the information or opinion; or (b) who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to the information or opinion.This amendment modifies the definition of personal information contained in the parent act, the Privacy Act. Currently there is doubt as to whether that definition of personal information as contained in the act would include information on individuals which has been revealed by such things as cookies and web bugs used over the Internet. The way these things operate, as I understand it, is that they will identify when someone has entered or browsed a particular web site. That information fed back to the service provider may not necessarily in itself identify the particular person, but subsequently, if that person makes a purchase over the Internet, subscribes to a service or otherwise gives their personal records, there is a means of connecting that detail to the whole trail of where that person has browsed. I appreciate that the intention of the government is to keep this legislation technologically neutral, and there are sound policy reasons for that, because technology develops very rapidly. Nonetheless, we think that we have come up with a form of words which more satisfactorily covers the use of these sorts of techniques, and the definition which we are proposing for personal information is:... information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual: (a) whose identity is apparent from the information or opinion; or (b) who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to the information or opinion.The key to our amendment is that it ensures that personal information, which includes information about an individual who can be indirectly identified by reference to information ascertained from an examination of such things as Internet cookies or web bugs, will be included. The current definition, as I have indicated, was conceived in an age when technology did not permit this kind of information to be stored and exploited, in particular by merging it with other information obtained from a variety of sources. Our new definition draws on the European definition which, while still technologically neutral, we believe is more technologically savvy.11:08:0022380Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—It came as something of a surprise that the opposition seeks to amend a definition that has been in the act and has operated quite successfully for some 12 years, at least in the public sector, and the reason behind this was not at all clear until the member for Barton spoke, because there has been no consultation at all on this issue. Having listened to the member for Barton, I am not convinced that there is a difference of moment that needs to be addressed by an amendment. But, while we will oppose the amendment at this stage, we will give further consideration to what he has said. Amendment negatived.11:09:0022380McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 7: (7) Schedule 1, after item 33, page 11 (after line 30), insert:33A Subsection 6(1) Insert:tenancy information means information or an opinion about an individual collected in connection with the provision of residential accommodation to the individual that is also personal information.This amendment inserts a definition of tenancy information. Tenancy information means information or an opinion about an individual which is collected in connection with the provision of residential accommodation to the individual. That tenancy information must also be personal information as defined in the primary act—whichever definition is ultimately decided upon. The House of Representatives committee to which I have referred recommended that the national privacy principles apply to tenancy databases from the date of commencement of the bill and that the government ensure that tenancy databases do not gain the benefit of the small business exemption.We note that the government have rejected the recommendation but, we believe, without any real explanation. There is no question that tenancy databases have aroused a considerable degree of community concern. We think that it is entirely appropriate that tenancy databases be addressed specifically in the bill. We hold this view because information on those databases, if incorrect, has a capacity to seriously harm an individual's capacity to access one of the most basic human needs for themselves and, more often than not, their family—and that, of course, is housing. When an increasing number of Australians are looking for rental accommodation for their long-term housing needs, it is imperative that individuals be equipped with an enforceable right to access information held about them on tenancy databases and to ensure that the information is correct. This should be the case, regardless of when the information was collected.11:11:0022380Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government considers this proposed amendment and amendments Nos 8 and 9 that the member for Barton will move following this amendment as unnecessary. They relate to the privacy practices of businesses that collect tenancy information and they also relate to the relationship between the small business exemption and the employee records exemption. It is the government's view that a definition of tenancy information is unnecessary and, as I have already expressed, that it is not appropriate for one particular group of businesses to be singled out in the bill. The best solution to concerns about tenancy database operators is to monitor their activities to see if any further regulation is required. The bill provides the Attorney-General with the power to prescribe small businesses or particular acts or practices of small businesses that should be brought within the ambit of the bill. This is the appropriate mechanism to be used to address the issue of tenancy databases once there is actual evidence that they pose a threat to the privacy of individuals. If there is to be any single sector or small business type to be dealt with by special provisions, no doubt there will be pressure for others and the broad principles of the bill will be lost.Amendment negatived.11:12:0022380McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 8 and 9:(8) Schedule 1, item 36, page 14 (line 22), omit “In this Act”, substitute “Subject to subsections (1A) and (1B), in this Act”.(9) Schedule 1, item 36, page 15 (after line 6), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a small business operator is deemed to be an organisation with respect to its actions and practices in relation to: (a) an employee record it holds; and (b) tenancy information it holds. (1B) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a small business operator is deemed to be an organisation if it accepts online payment for goods or services.As the Attorney-General indicated, these amendments relate to our two earlier amendments and are again intended to implement the unanimous recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which have been rejected by the government. The committee recommended that a new subclause be inserted to ensure that the small business exemption does not extend to acts or practices of a small business operator in relation to personal information about an employee. Again, that is information about health, family relationships, payroll deductions and the like, which we have proposed exempting from the small business exemption. It was also recommended that the national privacy principles apply to tenancy databases, as I previously indicated, from the date of commencement of the bill and that the government ensure that the tenancy databases do not gain the benefit of the small business exemption. These amendments are included in our proposed subclause 1A.Our amendment also proposes a new subclause 1B to address privacy concerns in relation to information collected through the use of Internet technologies. Evidence has been given to a Senate committee examining these issues that the government's small business exemption would exempt some 94 per cent of businesses that currently participate in electronic commerce in Australia. Our amendment proposes to include such businesses within the privacy regulation. There are very sound reasons, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, for that to occur. Our new subclause 1B states:Notwithstanding subsection (1), a small business operator is deemed to be an organisation if it accepts online payment for goods or services.Being deemed to be an organisation—that is, an organisation covered by the act—and receiving payment for online goods or services will necessarily mean that it will have private information from the citizen purchasing the goods, such as credit card details, and of course name and address, together with other information which a number of businesses acquire as part of incentive programs and the like. We say that this is not only a human rights issue but also an essential economic issue. For instance, it has been predicted that, worldwide, the value of Internet commerce will increase from something like $657 billion this year to as much as $6.8 trillion in the year 2004. Even if that is not achieved, clearly there will be a massive increase in the amount of Internet or electronic commerce. But, at the moment, only about five per cent of Australians who use the Internet—and I think there are about 43 per cent of Australians who do—are prepared to buy goods and services online.All the evidence and expert opinion suggests that privacy fears are the greatest impediment to the greater uptake of Internet technology. Our proposed subclause 1B will ensure that people dealing with online operators can be confident that their privacy will be protected, regardless of the size of the web site operator. It will also, very importantly, give overseas consumers greater confidence in engaging in electronic commerce with Australian businesses. We say that this is in the category of not only a human rights issue but also an economic imperative if Australia is to get a piece of the action in what is going to be a rapidly increasing commercial activity around the world.11:17:0022381Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I have effectively foreshadowed, in opposing amendment (7), that we would oppose amendments (8) and (9) as well. It is accepted that the development of electronic commerce is vital for the future of the Australian economy and that we need to be part of the international movement towards it. We also accept—and I have mentioned this publicly on many occasions—that people dealing online frequently provide false information in order not to disclose their identity so that personal data relating to them is not misused in any way. A surprisingly high percentage of people who participate in electronic commerce engage in this provision of false information. We cannot support what the opposition seek to do. It has not been properly thought through. It has been considered only superficially and we do not believe it is good public policy. Amendments (8) and (9), along with amendment (7), attempt to apply the provisions of the bill to all small businesses that hold employee records and tenancy information and accept payment online for goods and services. To accept these amendments would mean that a small business could be exempt in relation to some of the information holders and subject to the bill in relation to other information. This has the potential to create uncertainty and to be an unsatisfactory situation for small businesses and the members of the community who want to deal with them. I have commented in relation to amendment (7) about tenancy databases and I will not repeat my comments.The amendment that would deny the small business exemption to a small business operator that accepts online payment for goods or services is a totally new invention that we have not discussed with the opposition previously. Simply accepting payment online has nothing to do with what is the real privacy risk. The opposition's amendment is really nothing more than an unnecessary imposition on businesses trying to engage in the new economy. As the member for Barton has said previously, the government has sought to make the legislation technologically neutral. We believe it applies equally to online transactions between information gatherers and the public as it does to non-online or non-digital transactions.Amendments negatived.11:20:0022382McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move: (10) Schedule 1, item 36, page 18 (lines 23 to 24), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) discloses personal information about another individual to anyone else other than: (i) with the consent of the other individual; or (ii) as required or authorised by or under legislation.This amendment must be considered in conjunction with government amendment (6), which Labor will oppose. However, we do pick up some of the wording used in government amendment (6). Together, the effect of the changes would be to ensure that the disclosure of information by a small business, except with the consent of the individual concerned, would bring the small business within the scope of the act. Again, this implements the unanimous recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which was rejected by the government. The committee concluded that the small business exemption should remain but that the exemption should not be available where a business disclosed personal information other than with the consent of the individual. Accordingly, under our amendments it would be permissible for a small business to obtain and store the credit card details of the consumer without strict compliance with the national privacy principles relating to collection and storage. However, the decision to pass on those details to another organisation without the consent of the individual would bring that business out of the exemption. Under the current formulation proposed by the government, a small business will lose the benefit of the small business exemption only where it discloses information for benefit, service or advantage. Our amendments tighten this to ensure that any disclosure without consent or otherwise not in accordance with the law will bring the business outside the exemption.11:21:0022382Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The bill currently exempts small businesses from the scope of the bill unless they pose a particular risk to the privacy of individuals. An example of a risk to privacy is that a business engages in the disclosure of personal information about an individual for benefit, service or advantage. This amendment seeks to delete a paragraph and replace it with a new paragraph that will deny the small business exemption to businesses that disclose personal information about an individual other than with the consent of the individual or as required or authorised by or under legislation. The effect of this will be significantly to narrow the scope of the small business exemption. It will increase the number of small businesses that lose their exemption through normal business practices. The amendment effectively inserts into the exemption a consent requirement on the part of individuals. The small business exemption is a reflection of the government's core policy to minimise the compliance costs of regulatory regimes for small business. The exemption has been balanced to ensure that small businesses that pose a particular risk to the privacy of individuals will not be able to benefit from the exemption. For example, businesses that trade in personal information—that is, give or receive a benefit, service or advantage to collect or disclose personal information—will be denied the exemption. The opposition's amendment destroys that balance. It seeks to introduce a new consent based element to the exemption, which will mean in many cases that there will be no exemption at all. Alternatively, the small business will have the burden of determining whether consent has been given or not, which is in practical terms quite an unsatisfactory situation and which obviously will significantly increase compliance costs. The amendment demonstrates the opposition's desire, it seems, to turn the bill into an exercise in heavy-handed regulation, as distinct from light touch coregulation. The government opposes this amendment. Amendment negatived. 11:23:0022383McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment (13): (13) Schedule 1, item 42, page 26 (after line 4), at the end of section 7B, add: (7) Nothing in this section permits a political representative, a contractor or a subcontractor to sell or disclose personal information collected or held by the political representative, contractor or subcontractor to any entity that does not have the benefit of this exemption.This relates to the exemption for political organisations and those who are members of political organisations. We accept, as the Attorney-General indicated in his reply in the second reading debate, that there are very important principles of freedom of political discussion, just as there are with respect to the exemption for media organisations and journalists important issues relating to the freedom of the press. However, again having regard to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommendations, we note that that committee recommended that a new provision be inserted to provide that clause 7C of the bill does not allow a political party or a political representative to sell or disclose personal information collected by the political party or political representative in the course of their duties to anyone not covered by the exemption. Political parties, by virtue of their access to the Commonwealth electoral roll, are in a special position of trust with respect to private information of Australia's. We do recognise that the Commonwealth Electoral Act does prohibit the misuse of information contained on electoral rolls. However, we, like the committee, believe it is appropriate to amend the bill to provide a strict prohibition on the sale or inappropriate disclosure of personal information by a political party or a political representative. 11:25:0022383Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment simply on the ground that it is unnecessary. There is an exemption in the bill for registered political parties. The bill regulates organisations, and a registered political party is not an organisation. There is also an exemption in the bill for acts and practices of members of parliament where what they are doing relates to an election, a referendum or participation in the political process. Contractors for political representatives, subcontractors and volunteers are also exempt to the extent that they are assisting a political representative to do things in relation to an election, referendum or other aspect of the political process. The amendment, and I presume the opposition, seeks to amend clause 7C, although the amendments refer to clause 7B, which is not relevant. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Barton has confirmed that it should be 7C. 7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—The amendment proposes to add a subsection that confirms that political representatives, contractors or subcontractors cannot sell or disclose personal information to any entity that is not covered by the exemption. As I said, the government regards that as unnecessary. The government's view—and this was outlined in the response to the House committee report's recommendation 13—is that the clause already operates to restrict sale and disclosure of personal information in this way. The exemption would not apply where a political representative or other body described in clause 7C sells and discloses personal information for any purpose unconnected with an election, referendum or participation in another aspect of the political process. Amendment negatived. 11:27:0022384McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment (14): (14) Schedule 1, item 52, page 30 (after line 6), after paragraph (b), insert: provided that: (c) such collection or disclosure would not exceed the reasonable expectations of the community; and (d) the organisation which initially collected the information has complied with National Privacy Principle 1.This amendment deals with the circumstances in which an organisation may transfer information between related bodies corporate. Labor is concerned that the wide definition of organisations within which information can be freely disclosed is too broad. The effective extension of organisations to include `related entities' as defined in the Corporations Law makes the umbrella unreasonably large for effective protection of consumers' rights to opt out of information sharing. Labor's amendment will introduce an explicit test of how consumers expect that information provided by them to companies will be treated. This would confine the exchange of information between related bodies corporate to an extent more acceptable for consumers. Importantly, it will be possible for businesses to manage these consumer expectations by disclosing up front at the collection stage how the company proposes to share the information between its various related entities. The amendment also implements the recommendation of the House of Representatives legal and constitutional committee that the bill be amended to ensure that disclosure between related bodies corporate should be permissible only where the collection of that information complied with the national privacy principle relating to collection. 11:29:0022384Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government regards this proposed amendment as being inconsistent with an aspect of the basic design of the legislation. The related body corporate provision, clause 13B, allows related bodies corporate to share personal information and use that information in accordance with the original purpose of collection. Proposed government amendment No. 10 provides that an organisation cannot collect personal information from an entity that is exempt from the operation of the bill without it first ensuring that national privacy principle 1, which regulates collection practices of organisations, is complied with.The opposition proposes to amend the clause so that related bodies corporate can share personal information with each other only if it `would not exceed the reasonable expectations of the community' and national privacy principle No. 1 has been complied with. The government regards this amendment as unnecessary. Government amendment No. 10 ensures that NPP 1 is complied with before related bodies corporate can share personal information. The national privacy principles are all about using and disclosing personal information in a way that is consistent not with the reasonable expectations of the community but with the reasonable expectations of the individual who is providing it. That is a fundamental aspect of the design of this regime. The requirement that sharing information be within the reasonable expectations of the community is also vague and, with respect, displays a lack of understanding of what the principles are about. Amendment negatived.23:31:0022385McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 15:(15) Schedule 1, item 54, page 33 (lines 16 to 18), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) National Privacy Principles 2, 6 and 11 apply in relation to personal information held by an organisation regardless of whether the organisation holds the personal information as a result of collection occurring before or after the commencement of this section, provided that in respect of personal information collected prior to the commencement of this section, an organisation is not required to comply with those Principles where such compliance would place an unreasonable administrative burden on the organisation or cause the organisation unreasonable expense.This bill does not provide adequate privacy protection for information held in databases which have already been compiled and which will continue to be compiled until the commencement of the bill 12 months after it passes into law. In particular, the bill specifically provides that privacy principle No. 2, which relates to the use and disclosure of personal information, will not apply to existing databases. As I said in the second reading debate, this effectively means that the horse has already bolted and the horse is carrying on it the personal information in some circumstances of millions of Australians. I referred, for instance, to reports of a giant Acxiom database carrying information of some 15 million Australians which has been obtained from a wide variety of services such as web sites and coupled with information as to when people have ordered tickets for theatrical events and the like. We say that is unacceptable and effectively means that Australians will have no protection in respect of information that has already been collected.The Attorney in his reply to the second reading debate said that when the information is updated after the bill comes into force it will be caught within the parameters of the legislation. However, it will be a very simple procedure indeed for organisations, if they want to circumvent the provisions of the act, to simply quarantine that information which they already have. The fact that this bill will not come into operation for a period of 12 months is effectively saying to organisations, and there will be some unscrupulous organisations, `Look, the sun is shining for another 12 months. Go and make hay to build up these databases while the sun is shining, because that which you collect over the next 12 months will be quarantined from the provisions of the bill after it comes into operation.' We say that under the government's proposals it will remain possible, and indeed it will, for organisations to sell that information which they already have, even though Australian citizens unquestionably did not consent to their personal information being used for that purpose; that is, for the purpose of sale or lease by an organisation seeking to profit from their personal information relating to their personal affairs, and on occasions intimate details.The bill also provides that privacy principle No. 6, which relates to access and correction of personal information, will not apply to existing databases. The CrimeNet example, which I gave before, is a good example in this area too. It will mean, for instance, that if CrimeNet is displaying inaccurate information about a citizen, then aside from perhaps defamation laws that citizen will not have the right to access and insist on correction of the information contained on databases such as that. Accordingly, under the government's proposal, any Australian citizens who suffer damage as a result of inaccurate information currently held on them will be unable to correct that information. Inaccurate information held on a database regarding somebody's financial affairs could significantly impede that person's ability to rent a property, as we have discussed, or even for business to obtain finance. The treatment of existing data under the bill is fundamentally unsatisfactory. Our amendment will prevent the inappropriate use and disclosure of existing information by applying those privacy principles Nos 2 and 6, although we do recognise that, if it would involve inappropriate or unacceptable administrative procedures and hence expense to retrieve information already held, that case can be made out by organisations. It is not our intention to cause unreasonable administrative expense in respect of existing databases, but the reality is that much of it is already held in electronic form and is readily accessible, and there is no reason why that sort of material could not be brought within the parameters of the legislation. 11:35:0022386Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The member for Barton has got form on this issue. He is a recidivist offender. On 12 April, when I introduced the legislation, the member for Barton issued a news release claiming that the bill would not apply to existing databases at all. That was completely wrong. Pre-existing databases would not escape regulation. He is not quite committing the same offence today, but the views he has just expressed fail to take into account the impact of what he seeks to do. The bill currently regulates use and disclosure of personal information collected after the commencement date. NPP2 regulates use and disclosure. Similarly, the right to access your own personal information and to correct it if it is wrong, NPP6, applies only to personal information collected after the commencement date. There are very good reasons for this. The opposition's proposal is to amend clause 16C, which relates to the application of the NPPs, so that NPPs 2 and 6 apply to existing data. In addition, the opposition propose that a new NPP they have made up which relates to children's personal information apply to personal information held by organisations at the time the legislation commences.From what I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised when I indicate that the government opposes the amendment. NPP2, regulating use and disclosure, makes a distinction between the primary purpose of collection and the secondary purpose of collection. These concepts are linked to the procedures contained in NPP1. To require compliance with NPP2 without first having complied with NPP1 is problematic. It would create unnecessary and unjustified compliance costs for organisations. Organisations would be faced with similarly unjustified compliance costs in the case of the application of NPP6 to existing data. The government is not prepared to accept NPP11, a new principle made up out of the blue by the opposition, at this stage.It must be remembered—and the member for Barton has foreshadowed that I would make this point—that after the bill takes effect organisations such as Acxiom that hold existing databases of personal information will need to comply with all aspects of the legislation when they update that information, including those relating to collection, access, use and disclosure. In the information industry, the currency of personal information is crucial. This means that over time the complete set of principles will come to apply to that updated information. Another practical point that the member for Barton overlooks is that not all information is contained on databases online. Much information is contained in hard copy in archives, and to impose obligations on organisations that have records going back many years is to introduce regulatory requirements that meet no real threat in relation to privacy at all.11:39:0022386McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Briefly responding to a couple of those points, I note that the Attorney-General said that I had form on this matter. If my form is referring to provisions of the bill, in particular to proposed section 16C(3), I am guilty. For the record, it says this:National Privacy Principles 2 and 6 apply only in relation to personal information collected after the commencement of this section.But my criticism of the Attorney has been that the government has actually misled Australians into thinking that information which is already obtained about them is subject to protection under this bill. It is not, other than in respect of the mode in which that material is to be held after the bill comes into operation and other than in respect of circumstances in which that material might be updated if the organisation decides not to quarantine their existing databases of the information they already hold in respect of Australians.The Attorney's comment that I overlooked the fact that not all information will be held in electronic form is, with respect, unreasonable. I sought to make that point during my previous contribution on this amendment. In particular, the wording which we have proposed is that an organisation is not required to comply with those principles `where such compliance would place an unreasonable administrative burden on the organisation or cause the organisation unreasonable expense'. That is intended to cover the situation where the material is held in hard copy—we recognise that. There will be a lot of information held in hard copy in archive boxes stored away in storage facilities and in those circumstances it would present an unreasonable burden or expense. But, equally, if information is in that form, it is less liable to exploitation and hence on our amendments would be excluded from the provisions of the bill. 11:41:0022387Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I will briefly respond to that. If the legislation comes into effect in its proposed form, it will oblige private organisations that hold existing databases of personal information to take reasonable steps to ensure that the data is accurate, complete and securely held. The organisation will be required to be open to consumers about what information it already holds and how it collects, holds and proposes to use or disclose such information. So pre-existing databases do not escape regulation, and in fact the retrospective aspects of the bill mirror the provisions that applied to the public sector at the time that the public sector provisions of the Privacy Act 1998 were introduced by Labor.Amendment negatived.11:42:0022387McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:(16) Schedule 1, item 58, page 37 (after line 31), after paragraph (l), insert: ; and (m) the code requires the adjudicator to maintain a summary of each complaint resolved with or without a determination, finding, declaration, order or direction identifying the nature of the complaint, the code provisions applied in resolving it, the nature of the settlement, and any issues of law which were raised in the complaint; and (n) the code requires the adjudicator to provide a copy of these summaries to the Commissioner at least annually.The bill will effectively allow industry bodies to contract out of the privacy protection system by developing self-regulatory codes. It must be acknowledged that the Privacy Commissioner is entrusted with the responsibility of approving those codes, and no doubt will do so in good faith. But, once that code has been approved, the industry will then be wholly responsible for applying its interpretation of the code to all complaints which fall within its scope. The Privacy Commissioner has no power to audit compliance with the code: for instance, to enter premises and inspect documents or to interview witnesses. The Privacy Commissioner has no powers to review decisions made under the code. The Privacy Commissioner has no powers to direct code adjudicators on how they should go about the task of resolving complaints made under the code.One of the few things that the Privacy Commissioner can do is read the annual report prepared by each industry code adjudicator and, based on the very limited information which is required to be provided, make a decision whether or not to continue to approve the industry code. This amendment boosts the requirements necessary for the approval of an industry specific code to provide additional information to the Privacy Commissioner on the operation of the code. In addition to the requirements which are currently reflected in the bill, Labor's amendments will add the following: `the code requires the adjudicator to maintain a summary of each complaint resolved' with or without determination and also that `the code requires the adjudicator to provide a copy' of these summaries to the commissioner at least annually. This will provide the commissioner with valuable additional information upon which to decide whether or not an industry code is meeting the minimum requirements to maintain its approval as an alternative to the standard framework.11:44:0022387Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government opposes this amendment and believes it would introduce quite unnecessary bureaucratic requirements that would be expensive to implement and of little point. The amendment would impose additional burdens on organisations. It is inconsistent with the government's commitment to provide a light touch coregulatory approach to privacy protection, although I have to admit that it is consistent with the heavy-handed approach that the opposition seems to be taking. It should be up to individual code adjudicators to decide how complaints will be resolved and whether a precedent or similar system is set up. Imposing these requirements in the legislation will not encourage the take-up of codes by industry bodies, which will then rely on the national privacy principles instead. Of course, that would result in everybody being subject to the Privacy Commissioner's adjudication rather than individual code adjudicators. The Privacy Commissioner has a power to make guidelines relating to the making and handling of complaints under approved privacy codes in the new section 18BF. Whether he recommends an annual complaints summary will be a decision for him in administering the code system, and he will be in the best position to make that judgment. He will know how many code adjudicators there are, what industry sectors of individual enterprises they cover and how well they are operating. It is a matter which should be left for the decision of the Privacy Commissioner.Amendment negatived.23:46:0022388McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (17), (18), (19) and (25):(17) Schedule 1, item 58, page 40 (after line 11), after section 18BG, insert:18BH Review of operation of approved privacy codes (1) The Commissioner may, if in his or her view the circumstances so warrant, (a) following receipt of a report referred to in 18BB(3)(i); or (b) following receipt of the summaries referred to in 18BB(3)(n); or (c) on his or her own motion conduct a review of the operation of an approved privacy code. (2) The circumstances under subsection (1) may include: (a) the number, nature and outcome of complaints made to an adjudicator; and (b) the code provisions applied in resolving complaints; and (c) information received by the Commissioner that indicates that obligations under the code may not have been met by an organisation bound by the code. (3) In undertaking a review under this subsection, the Commissioner may: (a) review the complaints process; (b) inspect the records of the adjudicator; (c) review the results of complaints; (d) interview the adjudicator.18BI Review of decisions under an approved privacy code A person who is aggrieved by a decision made by an adjudicator under an approved privacy code may apply to the Commissioner for a review of the decision.18 BJ Powers of the Commissioner in respect of applications for review On an application for a review under section 18BI, the Commissioner may: (a) make a determination setting aside a decision under the privacy code, or a part of a decision, with effect from the date of the determination; (b) exercise all the powers conferred on the Commissioner to investigate complaints made directly to the Commissioner; (c) make a fresh determination in accordance with section 52.(18) Schedule 1, item 59, page 40 (after line 25), after subparagraph (ac), insert: (ad) to review the operation of privacy codes under section 18BH; (ae) to review decisions that an adjudicator may make under an approved privacy code under section 18BI, to set aside those decisions and to make fresh determinations.(19) Schedule 1, item 55, page 54 (after line 12) after section 55B, insert:55C Privacy Commissioner may issue Breach Notice (1) The Commissioner may issue a Breach Notice to an organisation which, in the opinion of the Privacy Commissioner, has not complied with a determination issued under section 52. (2) The Commissioner must provide the organisation with an opportunity to be heard prior to the issue of the Breach Notice. (3) The Breach Notice must specify; (a) the nature of the breach; (b) the steps which the organisation must take to rectify the breach; and (c) a reasonable time (no greater than 12 months) in which the organisation must rectify the breach.55D Offence of serious privacy breach (1) An organisation which does not comply with a Breach Notice issued by the Commissioner within the time specified in the Breach Notice is guilty of an offence. Penalty: 500 penalty units (2) A penalty under this section may be sued for and recovered by: (a) the Privacy Commissioner; or (b) a person that is affected by the serious privacy breach. (3) A proceeding under this section shall be commenced not latter than 6 years after the commission of the breach.(25) Schedule 2, items 1 and 2, page 77 (lines 4 to 11), omit the items.These amendments substantially boost the powers of the Privacy Commissioner. Labor believes that the key role of the Privacy Commissioner in supervising the developing private sector privacy jurisdiction has been undersold. The Privacy Commissioner should exercise a supervisory role over industry complaint bodies set up to administer the approved industry codes. If this does not occur, there is a risk that the codes will be applied differently across different industry sectors. Indeed, it is important to note that there will be many instances of overlapping codes, for instance, affecting banks which may be the subject of one industry code yet may be participating in Internet activity which is regulated by another code. So the danger of having different interpretations is very real. If that occurs, it will diminish the overall confidence that Australians have, and indeed those wishing to trade with Australia have, in the protection of privacy within our shores.The Privacy Commissioner should also have appropriate powers of audit and inspection, as I have indicated, to properly monitor the operation of the industry codes. One of the concerns raised by industry groups was that they did not wish to see decisions of industry codes reviewable under the administrative decisions judicial review mechanism currently provided for in the bill. Industry code processes operate in an informal fashion, which the Attorney-General has indicated and with which we agree. The burden of being subject to review, which concentrates on matters of form and procedure rather than substance and merit, was identified as undesirable. For this reason, our amendments would remove the right of administrative decisions judicial review from decisions of industry code adjudicators and, instead, provide the Privacy Commissioner with a supervisory jurisdiction over the code adjudicators. Where a person is unsatisfied with a decision obtained from an industry code adjudicator under an industry code, there will be an automatic right of appeal to the Privacy Commissioner, who will be able to set aside the decision of the adjudicator and make a fresh decision. As it is the experience of the current industry adjudicators that most complaints are resolved satisfactorily, we believe it is unlikely to result in a flood of claims or appeals to the Privacy Commissioner from unsatisfied applicants. It will also address the concerns that having multiple adjudicators applying multiple codes will lead to different interpretations being placed on similar provisions.Finally, these amendments establish the offence of serious privacy breach. We say that you have to be realistic. There will always be unscrupulous operators who will attempt to exploit personal information for profit, regardless of the applying law. The bill provides no real deterrent for those companies which break the rules again and again. Accordingly, there is a real risk that companies which ruthlessly exploit personal information for profit will go unpunished. As is the case in so many areas, it is often the actions of a few that affect the reputations of many. Our amendments will create an offence of serious privacy breach to ensure that business takes seriously their privacy obligations. The offence will be triggered only in circumstances in which the usual civil remedy offered by the Privacy Commissioner and enforceable by the Federal Court is not sufficient to address the problem. For instance, I gave the example that disclosing the personal details of someone's subscription to a surfing magazine, or whatever it might be, may not itself give rise to much compensation, but the invasion of that publisher's records might be so intense as to justify a penalty. The penalty proceedings which we have proposed will be available only after the Privacy Commissioner has issued to the noncomplying company a breach notice which specifies the nature of the noncompliance, provides the offending company with a warning of this course of action and offers the company an opportunity to make appropriate rectification and restorative measures. So it is very much a penalty of last resort but one which we say must be there to give some force and effect that this privacy regime is fair dinkum.11:51:0022390Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The amendments moved by the opposition highlight the difference of approach between the government and the opposition. The government seeks to emphasise, as businesses recognise, that good privacy is good business. The opposition seeks to treat them as criminals. So, instead of a light touch coregulatory approach, we have a punitive and bureaucratic approach on the part of the opposition.Amendment (17) proposes to significantly erode the coregulatory approach in the bill by providing that the Privacy Commissioner be able to conduct a review of the operation of an approved privacy code, including a review of the complaints process and inspection of the records of the code adjudicator, to review decisions made by a code adjudicator and to make determinations replacing those of an adjudicator after reviewing his or her decision. Amendment (18) is merely a consequence of amendment (17). It adds to the list of the Privacy Commissioner's functions.Amendment (19) moved by the opposition proposes to provide the Privacy Commissioner with an additional power to issue a breach notice where an organisation fails to comply with a determination issued by the Privacy Commissioner. If an organisation fails to comply with a breach notice within the time specified in the notice, the provision provides for a penalty of 500 penalty units. Amendment (25) relates to the deletion of an avenue of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Currently, the bill provides for the judicial review of decisions made by code adjudicators under an approved privacy code. It does this by amending the definition of `enactment' in that act so that a decision made by an adjudicator under an approved privacy code is one made under an enactment and is therefore reviewable under the act. The opposition proposes to delete the mechanism that allows for judicial review of decisions made by code adjudicators. The government naturally opposes all of these amendments. As I have said, they are inconsistent with a coregulatory approach and provide a distinct disincentive to develop privacy codes. Amendment (17) adds an extra level of review in the case where a code adjudicator has made a decision under an approved privacy code. The Privacy Commissioner is not resourced to undertake audits of private sector organisations and to review decisions made by code adjudicators. Not accepting amendment (17) has the consequence that we do not accept amendment (18). The provisions in amendment (19) are vague and are possibly inconsistent with the Commonwealth's criminal law policy. It is not altogether clear whether noncompliance with a breach notice is intended to be a civil or criminal matter. The amendment sets out provisions for recovery by the Privacy Commissioner or the person affected by the privacy breach, yet the compensation for breach is expressed in terms of penalty units. In addition, there may be constitutional problems with issuing a breach notice, as the process appears to be based on the Privacy Commissioner exercising judicial power. The Privacy Commissioner has operated very effectively under the public sector privacy scheme without using the threat of a breach notice. In the annual reports of the Privacy Commissioner going right back to 1989, I am not aware of any reference to any litigation in respect of a privacy complaint. All privacy complaints that have been dealt with seem to have been either withdrawn or satisfactorily dealt with by conciliation. The Privacy Commissioner under the legislation will have powers to make declarations, to fix compensation or even to fix damages where there has been a loss as a result of the breach of a principle, and those damages can include compensation for injury to feelings. In the context of the history of the public sector regime, there is no empirical evidence suggesting that there is a need of any sort for anything more punitive than that which is in the public sector regime. The government has followed the public sector regime in the design of this regime to apply to the private sector.The government does not accept that the Privacy Commissioner has a role in reviewing decisions made by code adjudicators. Potentially this may involve a considerable amount of work. (Extension of time granted) The Privacy Commissioner is not resourced to undertake the function of reviewing the code adjudicators. We do not know to what extent resources would be necessary. Potentially, no resources would be required if the public sector history is repeated. But, in any event, it downgrades the role of a code adjudicator in a way that is inappropriate. Code adjudicators should do the job that they are given to do under the code, and they should not be subject to someone watching over their shoulder. It is a matter between the complainant and the organisation; and, if either is dissatisfied, there is the alternative of a judicial review. To introduce a second tier of review is to introduce unnecessary expense and to potentially delay matters; it is bureaucracy and red tape rather than a simple solution.Amendments negatived.11:58:0022391McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (20) to (23):(20) Schedule 1, item 139, page 71 (line 23), after “individual,”, insert “other than health information,”.(21) Schedule 1, item 139, page 71 (lines 26 to 30), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute: (a) providing access would pose a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of any individual; or(22) Schedule 1, item 139, page 72 (after line 29), after subclause 6.1, insert: 6.1A If an organisation holds health information about an individual, subject to subclauses 6.1B and 6.1C, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request by the individual, except to the extent that: (a) the provision of the information would constitute a significant risk to the life or health of (i) the individual; or (ii) any other person; or (b) the provision of the information would contravene (i) a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; (ii) an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (c) the information consists of or includes material or information concerning an individual given in confidence to the person who was responsible for receiving or recording the information, by a person other than (i) the individual; (ii) a guardian of the individual; or (iii) a health service provider in the course of, or otherwise in relation to, the provider's treatment of the individual,and, in addition, health information may not be disclosed if (d) the individual notifies the person responsible for the information to the effect that the individual does not wish the information to be disclosed and the person responsible for the information marks the information or record accordingly; or (e) the individual (i) becomes a legally incompetent person; or (ii) dies. 6.1B Health information about an individual that contains factual matter is subject to the provisions of subclause 6.1A regardless of when the information was collected. 6.1C Health information about an individual that contains matters of opinion is subject to the provisions of subclause 6.1A if the information was collected on or after the date of commencement of this Act.(23) Schedule 1, item 139, page 76 (lines 28 to 31), omit subclause 10.4, substitute: 10.4 If an organisation collects health information about an individual in accordance with subclause 10.3, the organisation must permanently de-identify the information before the organisation discloses it unless it is impractical to do so.These amendments implement the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in relation to the treatment in the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 of health information. In moving these amendments, I draw attention to the fact that the regime for privacy in the private sector being put forward in this bill is woefully inadequate to protect the personal information files held in the electronic age. The information recorded about a person in a doctor's surgery or hospital is far more private than that gathered in a supermarket or a bank, yet the bill does little to recognise the special character of health information. Because health crosses over the public-private divide, it is clear that more work needs to be done to ensure that privacy protection is adequate.With respect to the Attorney-General's comments, there is a fundamental difference between the bill and the operation of privacy legislation to date, which has been primarily in the context of the public sector—albeit also in the context of credit. The public sector, of course, is not driven by a profit motive. In the private sector, I think we are going to be looking at a clash when trying to develop this culture of privacy in the context of the drive of the profit motive, which is necessarily part of the private commercial world.Having regard to that difference, particularly in the area of this very sensitive health information, the House committee clearly regretted its inability to properly address the area because of the time available. However, it did make recommendations in respect of access to medical records. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to include access standards for medical records, as set out in the ACT Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997, that is, a patient should have a right of access to his or her medical records unless one of three things is involved, the first being that the provision of the information would constitute a significant risk to the life or health of any person; the second, that the provision of the information would contravene a law of the Commonwealth, or a state or territory, or an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or, thirdly, the record is subject to an obligation of confidentiality. We say that those principles are really minimalist and should appropriately be included in the provisions of this bill.12:01:0022392Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Access to records containing personal information or health information is currently addressed by NPP6. Opposition amendment (20) seeks to amend NPP6 to facilitate amendment (22), which would separate the provisions dealing with access to health records from the general access provisions. Opposition amendment (21) is a consequential amendment arising out of the first two. Opposition amendment (22) separates the provisions dealing with access to health records from the general access provisions. It inserts new subprinciples into NPP6 dealing specifically with access to health information. The amendment limits the ability of record holders to legitimately deny access to an individual's health information. In addition, proposed NPPs 6.1B and 6.1C provide that an individual may access health information of a factual nature, regardless of when the information was collected, but may only access health information containing matters of opinion if the information was collected on or after the date of commencement of the bill. NPP10.4 currently provides that organisations that collect health information under NPP10.3 must take reasonable steps to permanently de-identify the information before it is disclosed. Opposition amendment (23) removes the qualification in NPP10.4 that an organisation must take reasonable steps to permanently de-identify certain health information before disclosing it and inserts the qualification, `Unless it is impracticable to do so.' The government opposes the amendments. The present treatment of access to health records in NPP6 is balanced and appropriate, and the opposition's amendments are unnecessary. I mention to the member for Barton that, in the preparation of the legislation, the ACT legislation was carefully examined. It was regarded as incompatible with the design of the government's regime and, on that basis, to the extent that it was inconsistent, it was not adopted. The opposition's amendments ignore the balance that the government has worked hard to reach in this area, following very extensive consultations with stakeholders. This includes extensive consultations by the Privacy Commissioner last year with the health sector, undertaken at the government's request. The provisions put forward by the opposition are simply not sufficient to take into account all of the complex issues that arise in relation to access to health records.The opposition's proposed new NPPs 6.1B and 6.1C broadly follow what has been proposed in recent draft Victorian legislation. The application of the bill to information collected prior to the commencement of the bill is set uniformly in relation to all personal information. There is no reason why the bill's application should be changed just in relation to health information. The amendment to NPP10.4 does not appear to have any substance. It simply changes one set of words that qualify the obligation to permanently de-identify certain health information with another. We are not concerned with semantics in this debate. The government opposes the amendments.Amendments negatived.12:04:0022393McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Finally, I move opposition amendment (24):(24) Schedule 1, after 139, page 76 (after line 35) at the end of the Schedule, add:11 Special protection for children 11.1 An organisation which: (a) operates a commercial service which is directed at children; or (b) operates a commercial service directed at a general audience but for which there is a reasonable expectation that personal information will be collected from children must: (c) provide parents with notice of the information collection practices of the organisation; (d) obtain parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing personal information about a child, which consent may be revoked by a parent at any time; (e) obtain new consent from parents when the information collection practices of the organisation change in a material way; (f) allow parents to access and correct personal information collected from their children; (g) delete information collected from children at the request of parents; (h) not require a child to provide more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in the service offered by the organisation; and (i) ensure that personal information collected from children is maintained with confidentiality, security and integrity. 11.2 In this clause:child means a person aged 13 or under.This bill contains no special treatment for information collected from children. It must be acknowledged that information privacy principle No. 2 and information privacy principle No. 6 do touch on that area. But, in so far as consent is involved in information privacy principle 2, the concept of obtaining informed consent from a child is deficient. Also, information privacy principle 6—that is the one providing for access and correction to information—is obviously short insofar as it does not provide access and correction to information obtained from third parties; namely, a parent seeking to obtain access and correction to information obtained from one of their children. I must say that I was particularly attracted to these provisions, which are essentially based on what has occurred in the United States, after sitting at my home computer and receiving email messages offering to sell me all kinds of pop band posters, music and memorabilia, an interest in which, clearly, my 13- and 14-year-old daughters had disclosed in terms of their interests and some other personal information. But that situation is not uncommon. Research by the US Federal Trade Commission revealed that 89 per cent of 212 commercial childrens web sites collected personal information from children, but only 24 per cent posted privacy policies and only one per cent required parental consent for the collection or disclosure of that information. So we believe that something needs to be done in Australia to put parents back in charge of their children's personal information. Families need to be given the tools to control who collects personal information from their children, to dictate how that information is used and, most importantly, to determine whether it is shared with third parties. The American approach is receiving considerable support, I might add, from reputable Internet service providers, who are helping to publicise the rules and to provide a specific link back to the Federal Trade Commission's `Kidz Privacy' page.Australian families do not have these important safeguards, but our amendments to the core of the bill—the privacy principles—would, we believe, go some way to achieving that. Our amendments will require the operators of commercial web sites and online services directed at children to comply with special and specific principles including: providing parents with notice of their information collection practices; obtaining parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing personal information about a child, with limited exceptions; obtaining consent from parents when information practices change in a material way; allowing parents to review personal information collected from their children; allowing parents to revoke their consent; deleting information collected from their children at the parents' request; not requiring a child to provide more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in a particular activity; and maintaining the confidentiality, security and integrity of information collected from children. In this age when, increasingly, the recreational, research and entertainment activities of families are intimately involved with the Internet, and when children are increasingly using it for entertainment and research, these special provisions applying to children are necessary and appropriate.12:09:0022394Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I do not think anybody in this House would deny that children are in need of special protection when they venture out into the community, whether they do it physically, online or otherwise. But because there is a need for protection of children does not mean to say that one can respond with what seems like a good idea without proper analysis and without consultation with those affected. That is what it seems the opposition is minded to do.This issue has been addressed by legislation in the United States, and it is also dealt with in the e-commerce best practices guidelines recently released by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the Hon. Joe Hockey. As an NPP, it comes completely out of the blue. The opposition did not provide the government with any indication it was considering such a principle, and in our view it is totally unrealistic to introduce such a wide-sweeping new policy like this without giving adequate time for community consultation or consideration by the government.The bill is the result of extensive community consultation that commenced in November 1996. We had notice yesterday, I think it was, that this amendment was going to be moved. It obviously has dramatic consequences. In its terms, it is inconsistent with the design of the regime under the bill. As a proposed NPP, it is technology specific, which is inconsistent with the rest of the bill and inconsistent with the sentiment expressed by the member for Barton earlier in this debate when he expressed agreement with the government's policy in that respect. The regime we put forward is designed to be technology neutral and therefore able to stand the test of time and changing technologies. As I have said, the coverage of the national privacy principles was the result of very long and extensive consultation. A separate principle relating to children has not been under consideration at any stage and including it now, without adequate consultation and support, is just unacceptable. We could not possibly accept an amendment in the terms put forward without a proper analysis of its consequences. We are willing to engage in discussion with the opposition as to the effect of what is proposed, but we are not prepared to accept an amendment at this point. Amendment negatived.12:12:0022395Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I propose to move government amendments in the following order: amendments (1) to (5) and amendment (7) together; amendments (6), (8) and (9) separately, then amendments (10) to (23) together. The government has closely considered the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and has proposed a number of amendments to the bill in response to the committee's recommendations. Changes have also been made to the bill as a result of further consultations with stakeholders. These proposed amendments were released in early September, consistently with the consultative approach that the government has adopted for this bill. The government proposes a total of 23 amendments. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (5) and amendment (7) together.Leave granted.22395Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 26 and 27), omit the definition of annual turnover, substitute:annual turnover of a business has the meaning given by section 6DA.(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (lines 27 to 35), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 23), after item 22, insert:22A Subsection 6(1)Insert:principal executive, of an agency, has a meaning affected by section 37.(4) Schedule 1, item 36, page 17 (line 8) to page 18 (line 7), omit subsections (1) and (2), substitute:What is a small business? (1) A business is a small business at a time (the test time) in a financial year (the current year) if its annual turnover for the previous financial year is $3,000,000 or less.Test for new business (2) However, if there was no time in the previous financial year when the business was carried on, the business is a small business at the test time only if its annual turnover for the current year is $3,000,000 or less.(5) Schedule 1, item 36, page 18 (line 18), omit “at any time”, substitute “for a financial year that has ended”.(7) Schedule 1, item 36, page 19 (after line 8), after section 6D, insert:6DA What is the annual turnover of a business?What is the annual turnover of a business for a financial year? (1) The annual turnover of a business for a financial year is the total of the following that is earned in the year in the course of the business: (a) the proceeds of sales of goods and/or services; (b) commission income; (c) repair and service income; (d) rent, leasing and hiring income; (e) government bounties and subsidies; (f) interest, royalties and dividends; (g) other operating income.Note: The annual turnover for a financial year of a business carried on by an entity that does not carry on another business will often be similar to the total of the instalment income the entity notifies to the Commissioner of Taxation for the 4 quarters in the year (or for the year, if the entity pays tax in annual instalments). (2) However, if a business has been carried on for only part of a financial year, its annual turnover for the financial year is the amount worked out using the formula: Amount that would be the annual turnover of the business under subsection (1) it the part were a whole financial year xNumber of days in the whole financial year----------------------------------------------- Number of days in the partIn relation to amendment (1), acting on suggestions made by the House of Representatives committee in its report on the bill, the government has reconsidered its approach to the calculation of annual turnover. While the government concluded that it is appropriate to use a turnover threshold in defining the extent of the small business exemption, it accepts that the definition of annual turnover in the bill as introduced could have unintended consequences for businesses that are input taxed. The government is proposing to remove the definition of annual turnover in the bill and to insert a new definition. Amendment (1), combined with amendment (7), inserts this new definition. The new definition of annual turnover will simplify the task of determining whether a business is a small business for purposes of the exemption.In relation to amendment (2), item 18 of the bill inserted a definition of journalism in subsection 6(1) of the act. Government amendment (2) proposes to omit this definition so that the ordinary meaning of the word `journalism' will apply. The ordinary meaning is relevant in determining the scope of the exemption for acts and practices done or engaged in by a media organisation in the course of journalism.The definition of journalism the government proposes to omit would have covered activities beyond the commonly understood activities of journalism. The amendment is intended to clarify the scope of the exemption, narrowing it to activities of mainstream media organisations and thereby making it more difficult for some online organisations not involved in mainstream media activities to take advantage of the exemption. The term `journalism' is intended to apply in a technology neutral way. This is consistent with the approach in the bill as a whole. The term is also intended to cover the dissemination of material to the public.Government amendment (3) inserts a new definition in the bill as a consequence of proposed government amendments (16), (19), (21) and (22), which concern NPP7. That principle places limits on the adoption, use and disclosure of Commonwealth government identifiers. The amendment inserts a definition of `principal executive' into subsection 6(1), which is designed to have the same meaning as it has in section 37 of the act. Government amendment (4) proposes to omit subsections 6D(1) and 6D(2) of the bill, substituting a new meaning of the term `small business' in the bill. That new definition provides that a business is a small business during a financial year if its annual turnover for the previous financial year was $3 million or less. The amendment also provides that a business which was not carried on in a previous financial year is a small business only if its annual turnover for the current year is $3 million or less. The method by which annual turnover is calculated for a previous year or projected for a current year is dealt with in proposed government amendment (7). Any criteria for determining a threshold raises difficulties of how to deal with entities that are on the edge and which sometimes fall under and sometimes go over the threshold. There is also the difficulty of how to assess the business that is just starting up in relation to the threshold criteria. The government seeks to clarify these issues through amendments (5) and (7). The bill outlines the circumstances in which a small business is prevented from being defined as a small business operator and therefore unable to rely on the exemption in the bill for small business operators. The practical effect of government amendment (5) is that an entity will not be a small business operator if it carries on a business that has had an annual turnover of more than $3 million in a previous financial year. The reference to a financial year that has ended means that a new small business that is required to project its annual turnover will not be denied the status of a small business operator only because its projected annual turnover exceeds $3 million. As already indicated, government amendment (5) together with amendment (7) simplify the application of the small business exemption. Government amendment (7) inserts a new clause 6DA into the bill, which defines the annual turnover of a business for a financial year as the total of the proceeds of sales of goods and/or services, commission income, repair and service income, rent, leasing and hiring income, government bounties and subsidies, interest, royalties and dividends and other operating income earned in the year in the course of business. The note to the new provision clarifies that in general a business's annual turnover will equate to the total of the instalment income the business notifies to the Commissioner for Taxation on its business activity statements over the course of the financial year. It is intended that in most cases a business will be able to use the calculations on its BAS to demonstrate its annual turnover for the purpose of the bill. (Extension of time granted) The proposed amendment also sets out a formula to project the annual turnover of a business that has been carried on for only part of a financial year. 12:18:0022397McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition agrees to government amendments (1) to (5) and amendment (7) inclusive.Amendments agreed to.12:18:0022397Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move government amendment (6): (6) Schedule 1, item 36, page 19 (after line 8), at the end of section 6D, add:Disclosure compelled or made with consent (7) Paragraph (4)(c) does not prevent an individual, body corporate, partnership, unincorporated association or trust from being a small business operator only because he, she or it discloses personal information about another individual: (a) with the consent of the other individual; or (b) as required or authorised by or under legislation.Collection with consent or under legislation (8) Paragraph (4)(d) does not prevent an individual, body corporate, partnership, unincorporated association or trust from being a small business operator only because he, she or it: (a) collects personal information about another individual from someone else: (i) with the consent of the other individual; or (ii) as required or authorised by or under legislation; and (b) provides a benefit, service or advantage to be allowed to collect the information.Related bodies corporate (9) Despite subsection (3), a body corporate is not a small business operator if it is related to a body corporate that carries on a business that is not a small business.This amendment in effect clarifies that a small business that collects or discloses personal information with the consent of the individual or is required or authorised by legislation will not be denied the status of a small business operator and therefore can retain the benefit of the exemption for small business. This amendment also clarifies that a small business is not exempt if it is related to a large business. It means that a small business that is part of a corporate group, which includes a large business, will not be able to take advantage of the small business exemption. This amendment is consistent with the general amendment to the related body corporate provision. I understand the opposition does not oppose all the changes contained in the government's amendment, but does oppose proposed new subclause 6D7, which inserts a new subclause affecting paragraph 6D4(c) of the bill. The proposed new subclause clarifies that a small business operator will not be denied the benefit of the exemption for small business operators only because the business disclosed its personal information about an individual with the consent of the individual or as required or authorised by or under legislation. One of the major considerations reflected in privacy principles around the world, including in this bill, is that an individual should be informed about how organisations use and disclose the personal information that is provided to them. Where an organisation acts in a manner that is consistent with an individual's expectations, which would be the case where consent is obtained, then the organisation is respecting the privacy interests of the individual. The government has proposed that a small business operator who discloses personal information for a benefit, service or advantage should not be able to have the benefit of the small business exemption. However, where the small business operator does so with the consent of the individual concerned, it is acting within that individual's expectations and consistently with good privacy practice. In such a case, the small business operator ought not to lose the benefit of the exemption in the clause for small business operators. The opposition disagrees. It considers that the fact that the individual consents to the disclosure of their information should not make a difference. The opposition would also deny a small business operator the benefit of the exemption if it is required or authorised by legislation to disclose the personal information. Let us look at how this might work in practice. The government requires the small business operator to disclose personal information about a trainee for whom the government is paying some grant monies. The government would effectively be saying, `The government's legislation requires you to hand over this personal information, but if you do so you will no longer be able to benefit from the government's exemption in the Privacy Act for small business operators.' This would be absurd result. The government, therefore, cannot support the opposition's proposed amendment. To do so would effectively penalise small business operators who are not doing anything wrong. The government proposed its amendment for a good reason. That reason still stands.12:21:0022398McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—As the Attorney-General indicated, the opposition opposes proposed subsections 6D(7) of this particular amendment proposed by the government. Our opposition is in the context of the amendment No. 10 which we previously moved. That amendment incorporates some of the wording of government amendment (6). Together, the effect of these two changes would be to ensure that the disclosure of information by a small business except with the consent of the individual concerned would bring the small business within the scope of the act. Again, this implements a unanimous recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which was rejected by the government. The committee concluded that the small business exemption should remain but that the exemption should not be available where a business disclosed personal information other than with the consent of the individual. Accordingly, under our amendments it would be permissible for a small business to obtain and store the credit card details of a customer, for instance, without strict compliance with the national privacy principles relating to collection and storage. However, the decision to pass on those details to another organisation without the consent of the individual would bring that business out of the exemption. We say that is appropriate even if the purpose of transferring that private information was not for the purpose of profit or material advantage. Under the current formulation contained in the bill, a small business will only lose the benefit of the small business exemption where it does so, as I indicated, for a service or advantage. Even in circumstances other than that, it could still be offensive to an individual to have their private information relayed to a third party, so our amendments tighten this to ensure that any disclosure without consent or otherwise not in accordance with the law will bring the business outside the exemption. I move: (1) Government amendment (6), proposed subsection 6D(7), to be opposed.Amendment negatived.Original amendment agreed to.12:24:0022399Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:(8) Schedule 1, item 36, page 20 (after line 10), after section 6E, insert:6EA Small business operators choosing to be treated as organisations (1) This Act (except section 16D) applies in relation to a small business operator as if the operator were an organisation while a choice by the operator to be treated as an organisation is registered under this section. (2) A small business operator may make a choice in writing given to the Commissioner to be treated as an organisation.Note: A small business operator may revoke such a choice by writing given to the Commissioner. See subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. (3) If the Commissioner is satisfied that a small business operator has made the choice to be treated as an organisation, the Commissioner must enter in a register of operators who have made such a choice: (a) the name or names under which the operator carries on business; and (b) the operator's ABN, if the operator has one under the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999. (4) If a small business operator revokes a choice to be treated as an organisation, the Commissioner must remove from the register the material relating to the operator. (5) The Commissioner may decide the form of the register and how it is to be kept. (6) The Commissioner must make the register available to the public in the way that the Commissioner determines. However, the Commissioner must not make available to the public in the register information other than that described in subsection (3).The government accepts the recommendation of the House of Representatives committee that a mechanism ought to be included in the bill to allow otherwise exempt small businesses, if they choose to opt in to the coverage of the bill and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Privacy Commissioner or an approved code adjudicator, to do that. This is implemented through government amendment (8), which will enable small businesses to opt in and opt out of coverage of the privacy scheme. Amendment (8) inserts a new clause 6EA, which allows a small business operator to elect to be treated as if it were an organisation and subject to the provisions of the bill. Such a choice must be made in writing and given to the Privacy Commissioner. The amendment also provides that if the Privacy Commissioner is satisfied that a small business operator has made a choice to opt into the privacy scheme in the bill, it must enter the name or name under which the operator carries on business and the operator's Australian Business Number, if it has one, in a register. The small business operator would then be treated as if it were an organisation covered by the bill from the date of registration.The opposition, I understand, opposes two aspects of the government's proposed amendment, based on its view that once a small business operator has opted into the coverage of the legislation it ought not to be able to revoke this choice by subsequently opting out. I do not understand what the opposition's problem is. The business has voluntarily elected to be covered; the government has not required it to comply. If there were no facility to revoke a voluntary choice to opt in, there would be other avenues open to a business that was serious about revoking this choice. For example, the business could wind up and recommence the next day in another guise or under another name. The government considers that the better approach is to respect that the small business operator has voluntarily chosen to bring itself within the legislation and can, if it so chooses, change its mind and revoke that choice. The government acknowledges that providing this option creates some issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Privacy Commissioner and has proposed an amendment to preserve the jurisdiction of the commissioner as appropriate. The government also acknowledges that the opt out facility is open to abuse. Were such abuse to come to the government's attention, the option is always open to the government to use its prescribing power to bring a particular small business operator within the coverage of the legislation. On that basis, the opposition's amendments to the government's amendments are opposed. 12:27:0022400McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move:(2) Government amendment (8), proposed subsection 6EA(2), omit the Note.(3) Government amendment (8), omit proposed subsection 6EA(4), substitute: (4) A small business operator may not revoke a choice to be treated as an organisation.Again, Labor supports the recommendation contained in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report that an opt-in mechanism for small business be included in the bill. We note that the government has picked that up. This will allow those small businesses which choose to opt in to market themselves as complying with national privacy principles, and we would certainly recommend to businesses that they do that because of the benefit they can obtain, particularly if they are going to engage in electronic commerce. These amendments implement an opt-in mechanism and also provide for an opt-out mechanism for those who would later choose to reassert their exempt status. This is unsatisfactory, in our view, because it also allows for businesses to opt out of coverage of the act when it no longer suits them to continue to protect the privacy information which has been collected by those businesses. It would allow small businesses to opt into the act to collect personal information from individuals who believe that the information is subject to the full protection in the act and then opt out of the act and presumably make use of, including sell, that information when they elect to opt out of the act.In our view, this is inappropriate and not in the spirit of the recommendations of the House of Representatives committee. Our amendments will ensure that, once small businesses have elected to be bound by the act, that choice will be irrevocable and will be something they will have to consider before they make the election. This will prevent the possible improper use of personal information. However, it will require small businesses to have in place the appropriate privacy protection systems for administering information prior to making the decision to opt into coverage under the act, which is prudent privacy practice. The amendment omits the note which states that businesses which have opted in can opt out. Our amendment No. 3 proposes to substitute in place of proposed section 6EA(4) a new subsection (4) that a small business operator may not revoke a choice to be treated as an organisation. The reasoning for amendment (3) is the same as I have just discussed. The amendment goes hand in hand with that amendment. It states:A small business operator may not revoke a choice to be treated as an organisation.This is necessary to ensure clarity and to prevent a situation in which a small business could opt into the act, collect personal information, as I have indicated, from individuals who believe that the information is protected, and then opt out of the act and make use of that information. There has been, during this exchange over the amendments, debate regarding the ability of small businesses to opt in and opt out—and, indeed, the philosophy of whether the act should or should not apply to small businesses. The government needs to be alive to the fact that the extent of the exemptions as currently proposed by the government probably will not be satisfactory to the European Union. People may say, `Who are they to tell us what to do?' I accept the reasoning there. However, while they are not entitled to tell us what to do, they are certainly entitled to elect whether or not they trade with Australia. I believe that, when their position is made clear to the government, the government itself will find that there will be an imperative to tighten up some of these exemptions if we are to benefit from the truly international opportunities that present themselves in this electronic trading environment. 12:31:0022401Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I will just respond first in respect of the mention of the European Union directive. The European Union directive has gloriously proclaimed that it requires adequate protection of the personal information of residents of European Union countries. Except through discussions with Australian officials, of which there have been a number, there is no clarification of what is meant by that. What this regime seeks to do is to ensure that personal information, privacy, is protected where there is a risk. The small business exemption has sought to identify those businesses that do not present a risk. Insofar as they are identified as not presenting a risk but they do, there is a capacity for them to be prescribed. I do not think anything in this debate should be influenced by what the European Union directive does or does not mean or how it might be interpreted in the future. That is a matter for discussion with the European Union. We believe that the regime we are putting forward provides appropriate protection for the personal information of individuals dealing with organisations within Australia and that there are adequate provisions to protect that information being transferred overseas.Amendments negatived.Original amendment agreed to.12:33:0022401Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move government amendment (9):(9) Schedule 1, item 42, page 23 (lines 27 to 31), omit subsection (4), substitute:Journalism (4) An act done, or practice engaged in, by a media organisation is exempt for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(ee) if the act is done, or the practice is engaged in: (a) by the organisation in the course of journalism; and (b) at a time when the organisation is publicly committed to observe standards that: (i) deal with privacy in the context of the activities of a media organisation (whether or not the standards also deal with other matters); and (ii) have been published in writing by the organisation or a person or body representing a class of media organisations.This amendment concerns the media acts and practices exemption in the bill. It partly implements one of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It inserts a new subclause that requires media organisations to meet an additional condition before the act or practice done or engaged in by the organisation in the course of journalism is exempt. The additional condition seeks to ensure an appropriate balance is found between the public interest in allowing the free flow of information to the public through the media and the public interest in providing adequate safeguards for the handling of personal information. This additional condition requires a media organisation to have publicly committed itself to observing public standards that deal with privacy before it can rely on the exemption for the media. One way a media organisation might demonstrate its public commitment to standards dealing with privacy is to show that it is a member of a media industry body and that membership of that body requires it to subscribe to a code developed and published by the industry body. Many media organisations already subscribe to published codes of practice that have been developed by media industry bodies. It is not intended that a media organisation need subscribe to a privacy code approved by the Privacy Commissioner in order to benefit from the exemption. The opposition apparently does not think that the government's initial condition goes far enough. The opposition, it seems, would require that the Privacy Commissioner approve in writing the standards that deal with privacy in the context of those media activities. And the opposition does not stop there. It would require that, before he approved the standards, the commissioner give everyone the commissioner considers has a real and substantive interest in the matters covered by the proposed standards an opportunity to comment on them. I wonder whether the opposition sought the views of the Privacy Commissioner before imposing such onerous tasks upon him. I wonder also whether it sought the views of media interests. I doubt it, because the government has already considered these options and, following extensive consultations, has rejected them. We consider the opposition's amendments in this respect to be ill conceived, and they are opposed. 12:36:0022402McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amend-ments (4) and (5) to government amendment (9):(4) Government amendment (9), at the end of paragraph (b), add: (iii) has been approved in writing by the Privacy Commissioner.(5) Government amendment (9), after proposed subsection 7B(4), insert: (4A) Before approving standards for the purposes of paragraph (4), the Commissioner must give everyone the Commissioner considers has a real and substantive interest in the matters covered by the proposed standards an opportunity to comment on them.Again, while it is appropriate that the role of the media is properly recognised and the concept of freedom of the press is appreciated as being vital to the proper functioning of our democracy, we believe that the exemption from the provisions of the act is too broad. We acknowledge that an appropriately worded exemption is necessary, but we are concerned with the extent of the proposed exemption. The government amendment will require media organisations to publicly commit to privacy standards in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption, and we agree that is appropriate. Indeed we welcome that change. However, we are concerned that the proposed amendment overlooks the important role of the Privacy Commissioner in ensuring that those standards are in fact acceptable and appropriate. That is the role of the Privacy Commissioner with respect to other private sector codes.Our amendment will ensure that, in order for a media organisation to be exempted from the provisions of the bill, the Privacy Commissioner must approve the privacy standards adopted by the media organisation. It must be realised, of course, that these media organisations are not exclusively and solely involved in the dissemination of journalistic opinion. They are involved in a wide range of activities, including linking to other networks and marketing of products and magazines and the like. So they will, as part of that trade, obtain a lot of information that is in the nature of consumer information, quite separately from their journalistic activities of relaying journalistic opinions regarding matters of public interest and current events.In terms of opposition amendment (5), we propose to insert after proposed section 7B(4) a new subsection 4A to provide that, before approving standards for the purposes of paragraph 4, the commissioner—that is the Privacy Commissioner—must give everyone the commissioner considers has a real and substantive interest in the matters covered by the proposed standards an opportunity to comment on them. I draw the attention of the House to the subjective opinion of the Privacy Commissioner; it is not an objective opinion, so that burden is not too onerous at all. He has to form in his mind, albeit in good faith, who has a real and substantive interest. We say that, if a public official is doing their job properly, they should engage in such consultation with those bodies that have a real and substantive opinion. As I say, the opinion is one that he—or she if the Privacy Commissioner becomes a she—subjectively holds, not one according to an objective standard. The amendment we are proposing adds to our previous amendment which requires the Privacy Commissioner to approve media privacy standards. The Privacy Commissioner should approve those standards only after conducting what we have said is appropriate consultation with the persons who are affected, as sound public administration. We believe this is in keeping with the spirit of government amendment (14) which will require the commissioner to undertake a similar process of consultation before issuing the guidelines. For any privacy regime to be effective, the public must have confidence in it, and public consultation, we believe, is an important mechanism in the development of that confidence. 12:40:0022403Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I just want to make two points. In case it is not altogether clear—and I may have misunderstood the member for Barton—the exemption for media organisations applies only in relation to their acts and practices when they are engaged in journalism. To the extent that they engage in any other sort of business, they are subject to the privacy regime under the bill. The second point I would make is to draw an analogy as a means of resisting the argument that the Privacy Commissioner ought to have a role in relation to media codes. This parliament has practices and procedures that are developed by it, and it exercises privileges that are allowed to be exercised under the Constitution. The courts have no role in the procedures of the parliament. They are simply nonjusticiable, and there is very good reason for that: the parliamentary and political processes are designed to ensure that any breach of procedures or requirements is capable of being dealt with within the confines of the parliament. When you come to the media, they sit in a somewhat similar position. They exercise a quasi-constitutional role in relation to exercising, under the Constitution, the implied right of communication in relation to matters of public affairs. To impose a judge on the media would be to do something similar to allowing the courts to interfere in the parliamentary processes. The Privacy Commissioner does not have a proper role in relation to what the media does in this area. It is a matter that should be controlled by the media in the same way that parliament should control itself. It is notionally nonjusticiable. That is the government view, and I commend it to the opposition. Amendments negatived.Original amendment agreed to. 12:42:0022403Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments (10) to (23): (10) Schedule 1, item 52, page 30 (after line 16), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) However, paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to the collection by a body corporate of personal information (other than sensitive information) from: (a) a related body corporate that is not an organisation; or (b) a related body corporate whose disclosure of the information to the body corporate is an exempt act or exempt practice for the purposes of paragraph 7(1)(ee); or (c) a related body corporate whose disclosure of the information to the body corporate is not an interference with privacy because of section 13D.Note: The effect of subsection (1A) is that a body corporate's failure to comply with the National Privacy Principles, or a binding approved privacy code, in collecting personal information about an individual from a related body corporate covered by that subsection is an interference with the privacy of the individual.(11) Schedule 1, item 54, page 33 (line 25), omit “and does not carry on any other business”, substitute “throughout the delayed application period for the organisation”.(12) Schedule 1, item 54, page 34 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of delayed application period, substitute:delayed application period, for an organisation, means the period: (a) starting at the later of the following times: (i) the start of the day when this section commences; (ii) when the organisation became an organisation; and (b) ending at the earlier of the following times: (i) immediately before the first anniversary of the day when this section commences; (ii) when the organisation carries on either a business that is not a small business or a business that involves the provision of health services. (13) Schedule 1, item 58, page 36 (lines 29 to 35), omit paragraph (3)(c), substitute: (c) the code provides that, in performing his or her functions, and exercising his or her powers, under the code, an adjudicator for the code must have due regard to the matters that paragraph 29(a) requires the Commissioner to have due regard to; and(14) Schedule 1, item 58, page 39 (after line 32), after subsection 18BF(1), insert: (1A) Before making guidelines for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the Commissioner must give everyone the Commissioner considers has a real and substantial interest in the matters covered by the proposed guidelines an opportunity to comment on them.(15) Schedule 1, item 58, page 40 (line 1), omit “the guidelines”, substitute “guidelines made under subsection (1)”.(16) Schedule 1, page 43 (after line 34), after item 76, insert:76A Section 37Omit “For the purposes of this Part, the”, substitute “The”.(17) Schedule 1, item 99, page 53 (after line 18), after subsection (7), insert: (7A) In conducting a hearing and making an order under this section, the court is to have due regard to the matters that paragraph 29(a) requires the Commissioner to have due regard to.(18) Schedule 1, item 114, page 57 (after line 23), after section 70A, insert:70B Application of this Part to former organisations If an individual, body corporate, partnership, unincorporated association or trust ceases to be an organisation but continues to exist, this Part operates in relation to: (a) an act or practice of the organisation (while it was an organisation); and (b) the individual, body corporate, partnership, unincorporated association or trust;as if he, she or it were still (and had been at all relevant times) an organisation.Example 1: If an individual carrying on a business was not a small business operator, but later became one and remained alive:(a) a complaint may be made under this Part about an act or practice of the individual in carrying on the business before he or she became a small business operator; and(b) the complaint may be investigated (and further proceedings taken) under this Part as though the individual were still an organisation.Example 2: A small business operator chooses under section 6EA to be treated as an organisation, but later revokes the choice. A complaint about an act or practice the operator engaged in while the choice was registered under that section may be made and investigated under this Part as if the operator were an organisation.(19) Schedule 1, page 66 (after line 5), after item 138, insert:138A At the end of section 100Add: (2) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subclause 7.1A or paragraph 7.2(c) of the National Privacy Principles prescribing an organisation, identifier and circumstances, the Minister must be satisfied that: (a) the agency or the principal executive of the agency (if the agency has a principal executive) has agreed that adoption, use or disclosure by the organisation of the identifier in the circumstances is appropriate; and (b) the agency or the principal executive of the agency (if the agency has a principal executive) has consulted the Commissioner about adoption, use or disclosure by the organisation of the identifier in the circumstances; and (c) adoption, use or disclosure by the organisation of the identifier in the circumstances can only be for the benefit of the individual concerned. (20) Schedule 1, item 139, page 67 (lines 33 to 36), omit subparagraph (iv), substitute: (iv) in each direct marketing communication with the individual, the organisation draws to the individual's attention, or prominently displays a notice, that he or she may express a wish not to receive any further direct marketing communications; and (v) each written direct marketing communication by the organisation with the individual (up to and including the communication that involves the use) sets out the organisation's business address and telephone number and, if the communication with the individual is made by fax, telex or other electronic means, a number or address at which the organisation can be directly contacted electronically; or(21) Schedule 1, item 139, page 73 (after line 29), after subclause 7.1, insert: 7.1A However, subclause 7.1 does not apply to the adoption by a prescribed organisation of a prescribed identifier in prescribed circumstances.Note: There are prerequisites that must be satisfied before those matters are prescribed: see subsection 100(2).(22) Schedule 1, item 139, page 74 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph 7.2(b), substitute: (b) one or more of paragraphs 2.1(e) to 2.1(h) (inclusive) apply to the use or disclosure; or (c) the use or disclosure is by a prescribed organisation of a prescribed identifier in prescribed circumstances.Note: There are prerequisites that must be satisfied before the matters mentioned in paragraph (c) are prescribed: see subsection 100(2).(23) Schedule 1, item 139, page 74 (line 6), after “name”, insert “or ABN (as defined in the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999)”.Amendment (10) amends the provision in the bill that allows related bodies corporate to share personal information. The new clause will clarify how the related bodies corporate provision interacts with the exemptions in the bill. It will ensure that, where an entity that was not required to comply with the national privacy principles shares that personal information with a related body corporate, that related body corporate must comply with the national privacy principles or code equivalent when accepting that information. Amendment (11) also concerns the small business exemption and, together with amendment (12), it clarifies which entities can take advantage of the delayed application period for small business. The amendment to clause 16D combined with amendment (12) means that the length of the delayed application period may vary. The period of delay may be a maximum of 12 months after the commencement of clause 16D or may, as a result of amendment (12), be a shorter period. Amendment (12) introduces a new definition of delayed application period. It retains the 12-month delay for most small businesses but introduces new provisions to deal with new organisations and organisations that carry on a business that is not a small business or that provide a health service. Amendment (12) removes the additional 12-month delayed application of the legislation to small businesses that provide a health service. Amendment (13) together with amendment (17) clarify that a co-adjudicator in exercising functions under an approved code in the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court in exercising any judicial review powers should have regard to the same matters that the Privacy Commissioner must consider under section 29A of the Privacy Act when exercising his functions. Section 29A provides that the commissioner shall have due regard for the protection of important human rights and social interests that compete with privacy. Amendment (14) requires the Privacy Commissioner to consult affected stake-holders before making guidelines relating to making and dealing with complaints under approved privacy codes. Subclause 18BF(2) provides that the Privacy Commissioner may publish guidelines in any way he or she considers appropriate. Amendment (15) clarifies that that subclause refers to all guidelines listed in subclause 18BF(1). Amendment (16) deletes the reference to part V so that the definition is capable of extending to NPP7. Amendment (17) makes it clear that a court must have due regard to the same matters as the Privacy Commissioner by expressly referring to paragraph 29(a) of the act. Amendment (18) preserves the jurisdiction of the Privacy Commissioner for those periods during which the organisation had voluntarily opted into coverage, or subject to the legislation for a period, under other grounds. Amendment (19) relates to the regulations that may be made in relation to NPP7 as proposed under amendment (21). Before the Governor-General may make regulations for the purposes of NPP7, the minister must be satisfied of certain things. These are that the agency must have agreed to the adoption, use or disclosure by the organisation of the identifier. In the circumstances it is appropriate that the agency must have consulted the Privacy Commissioner about the proposal and that the adoption, use or disclosure can only be for the benefit of the individual concerned. Amendment (20) provides that every time personal information is used for the secondary purpose of direct marketing, the organisation must provide the individual the opportunity to opt out of receiving further direct marketing communications from the organisation.Amendments (21) and (22) provide some flexibility in terms of the adoption, use and disclosure of government identifiers. The amendments are not, however, intended to open up the principle to allow for widespread adoption, use or disclosure of such identifiers. Amendment (21) will make it clear that adoption, use and disclosure of an identifier is permissible under NPP7 if prescribed. Prescription can only occur where the circumstances set out in amendment (19) are satisfied—that is, the agency agrees the commissioner has been consulted and only where adoption, use or disclosure is for the benefit of the individual concerned. Amendment (23) will ensure that the Australian business number—ABN—which is intended by the government to be adopted, used and disclosed as an identifier of an organisation, is not subject to the limitations in NPP7. I commend the amendments to the House.12:47:0022406McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition agrees to amendments Nos 10 to 23 as proposed.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.22406Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills22406R117022406Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.12:48:0022406McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—While the opposition supports the Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2000, there are some points we would like to place on the record regarding the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service. The intention of the bill is to rectify some potential invalidities or irregularities that could occur in respect of the transfer of proceedings between the Federal Magistrates Service and the Federal Court or the Family Court and, in reverse, from the Family Court or Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. We understand that the Attorney-General has received advice that there is some doubt as to whether the transfers between those respective courts can occur under the feeder legislation—for want of a better description—to these courts: the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, the Family Law Act and the Trade Practices Amendment Act.We agree that there needs to be clarification of those matters and we also agree with the need for schedule 2—that is, the safety net provisions contained in the bill—to validate any decisions or orders that may have offended the requirements of the current legislation. We might add, however, that we believe there may be a constitutional issue that does arise as to the extent to which the parliament can validate orders that have already been made, particularly with respect to orders for the dissolution of a marriage. We have questions as to whether that is effectively an administrative action rather than a judicial decision dissolving those marriages, but no doubt that is something the Attorney-General's Department has considered or will consider. I do not want to make a point about an embarrassing oversight. These sorts of things can happen no matter which political party is in power. I think the important thing is to rectify these matters so that litigants before the courts do not waste money in litigating issues that ultimately result in the outcome of the proceedings being set aside or found to be a nullity. The point I want to make in my contribution concerns not so much the technical issues relating to the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service but, rather, the practical issues. Fundamentally, those practical problems have been the result of the creation of an artificial seam where one is unnecessary; that is, the creation of a Federal Magistrates Service as a separate and distinct court from the Federal Court and the Family Court has created problems in respect of the use of the premises, the use of libraries, for instance, the interactive use of staff and the storage and transfer of files. No doubt, as the service continues to function, many other areas of administration will become involved. Albeit this was in the middle of the year, and hopefully some teething problems have been struggled through, I would point out that there was a Financial Review reference—reported on 23 June 2000—to an interview with the Chief Federal Magistrate, Ms Diana Bryant QC. Justice Bryant is reported as saying:“We are all in a `federal judiciary family' but like all families there's a power struggle,” she said. Ms Bryant said that while in Adelaide trying to set up the magistracy she “foolishly” mentioned sharing the existing library, and she admitted the rules and procedures of the court, along with the filing fees, had not been finalised. I understand the rules and procedures and filing fees are being resolved; but clearly there is a reference there, if you like, to the respective empires being protective of their own turf. That is regrettable when what we are about is trying to ensure that Australian citizens have access to cheap and efficient justice irrespective of the source of that justice. Again, creating this artificial division, we believe, is unnecessary and has more to do with the desire of the government to avoid public headlines regarding decisions of the Family Court. That is not the way to create these institutions that are so vitally important to Australians receiving justice. The clashes which have occurred—and which we believe will inevitably occur—between the competing jurisdictions are particularly important in the context of a reduction in the Family Court's budget. The Family Court's budget has been cut, as a result of the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service, by some $15.4 million over four years. That has resulted in the loss of some 80 jobs. If you leave aside the entrenched costs of the Family Court, as was indicated in a memorandum of the chief executive of the Family Court of 10 May 2000, this cut of some $15.4 million is effectively a 10 per cent reduction in the operating budget of the Family Court. As the chief executive officer indicated, it would have significant repercussions for the staffing and delivery of services of the Family Court. That has proven to be the case. For instance, I was recently in the federal electorate of Capricornia, in the city of Rockhampton. It appears that the cuts to the Family Court's budget have resulted in a reduction in registry hours from a full-time operating registry to two days per week during non-circuit weeks, although it will operate on a full-time basis during circuit weeks, which I understand is approximately half the year. The person who staffed the registry has said: `What sort of a job is that for me? I have a full-time job half the year and half a job for the remainder of the year. Where does that leave me?' It appears that she has very quickly been snapped up by a legal firm up there because of her reputation for competence and assistance to members of the public. It is regrettable that the Australian public has lost a very loyal public servant who has been of great benefit to the local community in that area. I should say that `local community' is a very broad term when you are looking at the electorate of Capricornia and the surrounding areas. People came from hundreds of miles away to obtain services from the Family Court registry located in Rockhampton. There are going to be real problems for the community up there because of the loss of that staff member. How will a person travelling from 100 miles away know whether the registry is going to be closed or open before they leave? This registry had really made a contribution in assisting people to complete documentation—for example, to direct them to other support services that were available to reduce the extent of trauma associated with marital breakdown and generally to provide a very valuable and valued public service up there. There are also going to be problems as to what is going to happen now with documents that have been filed in Townsville because the Rockhampton registry is not open. If these documents are filed at a time which is close to when the circuit is going to be in the city, there is a real prospect of disruption to proceedings as a result of documents going astray. So, despite the government's protestations and the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration that there would be no further depletion of services to regional and rural Australia, the establishment of this Federal Magistrates Service has indirectly resulted in that occurring because of the reduction in resources to the Family Court of Australia. Although obviously the loss of that registry resource is important, of more crucial importance is the issue of counselling. That was flagged, perhaps, by the Chief Federal Magistrate, Justice Bryant, in the interview which is reported on 23 June. She is reported as saying that she was still dealing with the vexed problem of alternative dispute resolution and how to offer it effectively within the budget—that is, the budget of the new Federal Magistrates Service. I understand that, while it was initially intended that the Federal Magistrates Service would have access to the counselling facilities of the Federal Court, and perhaps to the counselling facilities offered by non-government organisations, there is, as she points out, a question of resourcing the Federal Magistrates Service to provide that counselling service. If they do not have the money, they clearly cannot pay for that service. Again, because of the difference in the courts, presumably if the Federal Court counsellors were going to be involved there would be some payment required from the Federal Magistrates Service to the Federal Court for those hours. Or if non-government organisations were going to be used by the Federal Magistrates Service, presumably there would be some payment required from the Federal Magistrates Service.To date, it looks as though that has not been sorted out. It has been reported to me that the Federal Magistrates Service simply is not offering that counselling—those important alternative dispute resolution facilities—to people who file documents before the Federal Magistrates Service. That is significant because of the effect that the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service has had on the Family Court—namely, a reduction of $15.4 million in the Family Court's operating budget. As was indicated by the chief executive officer of the Family Court, as a result of that 10 per cent reduction—and I quote from his 10 May memorandum:It is likely that we will need to reduce the amount of voluntary counselling that we provide, with the result that some counselling positions will go.In Rockhampton, for instance, that has been the outcome. The counselling services will be entirely contracted out to private service providers—to non-government organisations. I met with a number of those non-government organisations when I was in Rockhampton. They are staffed by extremely decent, competent people. The organisations do a tremendous job. But there is a real issue as to whether they are going to be able to perform Family Court counselling properly, and certainly as to whether they will be able to provide the service that is needed as part of the Family Court proceedings. There is a real resourcing issue: what will they be paid to undertake this counselling activity? What is the extent of training that is being undertaken by their counsellors? The Family Court counsellors have been selected after a rigorous selection process and then have an extensive in-house training program. We are entitled to ask: will that sort of training and selection process be applied in respect of the non-government organisations? Also, in resolving family law disputes, it is naïve to assume that some knowledge of family law is not required and, indeed, some knowledge of the likely outcome of proceedings. How can you attempt to resolve a residence or an access matter between a couple when you are not familiar with the likely outcome of that matter, should the people involved go to court? More often than not, these matters are resolved when someone who is properly informed and has the respect of the litigants is able to say, `You have to be sensible here. No-one likes the outcome of the Family Court process because, by definition, you walk away with less than the combined assets you had as a husband and wife; indeed, you walk away, more distressingly than that, with less time with your children because of the different orders made about residence and access to your children.' By its very definition, the Family Court process ends up with people who are dissatisfied because they have less than they started off with, having regard to the nature of the breakdown in the relationship.What has been vitally important has been the ability of counsellors to say, `I know you're not happy about this and you don't want to see that happen, but if you go on to litigation, this is going to be a likely outcome.' The counsellors with these non-government organisations who have not had that sort of experience are going to be at an extreme disadvantage—or, more specifically, people using that counselling service are going to be at an extreme disadvantage in terms of receiving any meaningful guidance from the counsellor. There are also issues as to who will be available to assist the non-government organisations to reduce any agreement to a written form should they be able to succeed in bringing the parties to an agreement. There are also issues relating to a support network for these counsellors in the non-government organisations. The Family Court counsellors, as you would expect, have developed an extensive support network in respect of the quite intense and personal problems that they confront. They are able to consult with their colleagues as to ideas that have been tried and proven to be successful in the experience of these other counsellors. But this is going to be an entirely new territory for these non-government organisations, which will not be able to tap into such a network of support.One of the vital roles played by Family Court counsellors is the provision of family reports to judges. Judges rely extremely heavily on those family reports because they are getting input presumably from someone they respect who has had the time to spend with the respective parties to the marriage break-up and, more importantly, with their children. Do we lose that important area of input into the Family Court process because of the contracting out of these counselling services? It is very much penny-wise and pound-foolish to look at saving money in the area of counselling. The Attorney himself recognised, when he commented on the Family Court of Australia's annual report for 1999-2000 as recently as 27 October 2000, that:The use of primary dispute resolution processes resulted in only 6.5 per cent of all matters filed with the court being finalised by judgment during 1999-2000.That is an outstanding result from these primary dispute resolution processes. Only 93.5 per cent of cases went to trial because of the success of these settlement processes. The proof of the pie is in the eating. These counselling services have had dramatic success in resolving matters without going to litigation. So to diminish the resources available to them and their opportunity to assist parties to come to a resolution outside the judicial process is, as I say, penny-wise and pound-foolish simply because it is more than likely that you will end up with more court hours and paying for the cost of judicial time, an associate, a court reporter, a court officer and even the rental space of those courts. So it is just foolish.In addition, there will inevitably be additional expenses to the community. The longer that family disputes go on unresolved, the greater the need will be, for instance, for a whole range of additional social services to cope with children who, more often than not, are the ones who suffer trauma in situations of marriage break-up where there is hostility. Indeed, in worst case scenarios, there will also be the need for the intervention of police services if there is a build-up in aggression to the point where domestic violence ensues. Again, we are all familiar with such situations. It is fair to say that those comments are not sensationalist because we are well and truly aware of the need for police to come out in domestic violence situations. The police themselves regard that as one of the most dangerous activities that they confront. But all the time that matters are not resolved, the victims are very much the children. So this disjunction that is creating this artificial division between the Federal Magistrates Service and the Family Court, with the accompanying diminution of resources to the Family Court, has already had significant effects, particularly in rural and regional Australia. I was particularly encouraged by my discussion with the Rockhampton practitioners, all of whom appreciated the value of these counselling services, despite the fact that the lawyers did not play a part in attending those counselling proceedings and were cut out of the action from a financial point of view. They all recognised that it was in the interests of their client to achieve a conciliated outcome through an effective counselling process, rather than for the matter to be resolved by litigation. It was put to me—and I have to say that I agree with it—that the mere fact a litigation is commenced invariably results in the inability for that matter to settle. As soon as you are required to put down in affidavit form the various accusations and imputations against the other party, particularly in the context of residence and access to children, you automatically inflame the situation so that it takes months to resolve. They put to me the vital importance of counselling at an early date—a suggestion that we will take on board in our policy development, and one that the government may take on board. It was put to me that, other than in matters of urgency of domestic violence or perhaps an abduction, it may well be of benefit to require parties, before they commence proceedings in the Family Court, to file a certificate of attempted resolution through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, where it is not necessary to up the ante by setting out in writing the various accusations, airing the dirty laundry and aggravating both parties. That is certainly something to bear in mind. I make those points not as an aside but to say how directly important counselling services are in this area.We are having a situation where, because of the depletion of the resources of the Family Court, those counselling services are being contracted out in circumstances where I do not believe that contracting out is going to deliver services effectively. At the same time—and this is a vitally important point—it does not appear that the Federal Magistrates Service has the resources to tap into these counselling services. I might add that the ridiculous situation is now occurring in Rockhampton where, after losing their staff member of the registry because of the reduction of registry hours, there are apparently negotiations occurring as to whether the Federal Magistrates Service will place some additional demand on the registry such that it could be at least partially reopened during those non-sitting periods.You have had a reduction or sucking out of assets result in reduced services for the community. Perhaps commonsense is prevailing so the wave is starting to come in a bit in terms of people resolving these practical differences that exist between the way in which the Federal Magistrates Service and the Family Court conduct themselves. That is very relevant in terms of the way circuits are conducted. If you lose 10 per cent of your operating budget the inevitable consequence for the Family Court is that they are going to have to reduce the amount of circuit time they undertake—and circuits are vitally important to the delivery of justice to rural and regional Australia. To what extent will the Federal Magistrates Service be able to fill that void? They already have intense demands in the capital cities for their services. The Chief Federal Magistrate has indicated that she herself has some resourcing questions if their workload increases, as one would expect it will. That has to put into question the extent to which the Federal Magistrates Service will be able to undertake circuit work. What is going to be the mechanism for coordinating circuits undertaken by the Federal Magistrates Service as opposed to the circuit work undertaken by the Family Court? They are vitally important questions because, for a start, when is the Rockhampton registry going to be open? Is it only going to be open during the circuit weeks of the Family Court or will it be open separately or in addition during the circuit weeks of the Federal Magistrates Service? This is a vitally important question not only for the registry staff but also for people wishing to use the registry. Put yourself in the position, as it was explained to me, of these practitioners. What body, what court, do they commence the proceedings in? Do they commence the proceedings in the Family Court, where they know there is going to be at least some access to counselling, albeit, it now appears, through the contracting out arrangement? Or do they commence it with the Federal Magistrates Service, where it was conceded that, because of the fewer matters in that service, they will get a more expedited hearing date, but they will not have the opportunity for the counselling services that are available? Again, what court they commence it in will depend very much on the extent to which circuits will be undertaken by the Federal Magistrates Service. These sorts of things just have not been worked through. It is already having an effect on rural and regional Australia. It is certainly having an effect on the administration of justice. This is frustrating because there were alternatives. We argued, and it indeed is still our position, that it would have been preferable to include what we acknowledge as a required magistrates level of justice within the existing Family Court and Federal Court structures. A good example is how the Western Australian Family Court operates, where, yes, there is a magistrates service incorporated within that court but it very much operates as the one unit, where magistrates and judges alike work off the one docket system so matters flow freely between them, depending on the level of complexity, urgency and the like. Incorporation of the Magistrates Service within the existing family and federal courts would have avoided these unnecessary, practical problems that I have referred to—problems because of the artificial and unnecessary division between the jurisdictions, particularly in the Family Court area.Another alternative, or an additional avenue that would have been available, was proposed by three state Attorneys-General. Jan Wade in Victoria, Matt Foley in Queensland and Jeff Shaw in New South Wales all said, `Why are you creating this additional service? We have magistrates all through our states in regional and rural areas. Why don't we look at sitting down with an agreement for dual commissions to appropriately trained magistrates'—they concede that not all magistrates would have the training—`so that we could literally get these sorts of services out into the bush?' That was totally ignored by the government. Again, one has to question the merits of this ridiculous step of spending some $27 million to establish an entirely separate court, which has caused fractures and unnecessary divisions in the delivery of justice. As a New South Wales Law Society Journal concluded:From the Federal government's perspective, however, the best use of the $27 million will be the disappearance of the Family Court from television current affairs programs and the front pages of the press.One suspects that that is the motive of the government, but it is not sufficient for the administration of justice. (Time expired).Debate (on motion by Ms Worth) adjourned.Miscellaneous22411Motion (by Ms Worth)by leave agreed to:That the following bill be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amend-ments) Bill 2000Bills22412R115322412Debate resumed from 6 September, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.13:19:0022412Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000, I am sure you would not mind, and nor would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is at the table, if I made a few remarks about White Wreath Day. A large number of us have been out on the lawns of Parliament House, where a very powerful statement has been made by the wreaths laid out on the lawns commemorating all the people who have died from suicide this year. I would like to say, on behalf of the whole parliament, how much we owe Fanita Clark, the woman who has organised White Wreath Day, for bringing this very powerful statement to the parliament.One of the most important things, as she said in her remarks out on the lawns, is, of course, to bring mental illness and suicide out into the open so that it is talked about in our community and not hidden or treated as something that cannot be addressed. I wanted to take a moment before beginning my remarks on this bill to pay tribute to her work. She suffered the tragedy of losing her own son to suicide. All of us have a little more understanding of the pain that she has gone through, given our terrible loss here in the parliament with Greg Wilton's suicide. I recommend to all members that they go out and spend a bit of time looking at the stories that are displayed out on the lawns. Hopefully, as a result, we will all take much more action to talk about the issues and also to improve our policies with respect to mental illness.The aim of this bill is to tighten the process for determining eligibility for the $3.8 billion Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As all of us know, the PBS, as we call it, is a very successful Commonwealth program that provides the community with reliable and affordable access to necessary and cost-effective medicines. Under the scheme the Commonwealth pays about 82 per cent of the cost of PBS listed drugs. Pensioners, of course, are required to pay only $3.30 for each prescription, which makes sure that they have access to the medicines that they need at an affordable price.It is a very significant program. As at 1 February last year, the scheme covered an enormous amount of medicines—559 different medicines—while 140 million prescriptions are supplied each year under the PBS. It is very important that the entitlement arrangements are properly administered so that we can ensure that only eligible people are receiving benefits. Eligibility for the scheme is restricted to Australian residents and to visitors from countries with which Australia has a reciprocal health care agreement. These countries are the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland.Under the bill, the government wants to make it harder for ineligible people, such as tourists, overseas visitors and people with non-resident status, to obtain subsidised drugs. The amendments also attempt to reduce the incidence of doctor shopping. Doctor shopping, as I am sure most people are aware, involves consumers obtaining large quantities of subsidised drugs for recreational drug use, sale for profit or to send to friends overseas by presenting prescriptions from different doctors to different pharmacists for the same drug. The opposition, of course, supports both of these goals. We want to make sure that the PBS works effectively and cuts down on fraud. However, we want to make sure that, in meeting that objective, we do not do so at the expense of privacy. We have just had a very long debate in the parliament between the Attorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General in trying to improve the government's privacy legislation. One of the critical areas in that regard is in the area of privacy over an individual's health information. We certainly have some concerns, not so much about what this bill is trying to do but about where the government is heading with unique patient identifiers and the lack of privacy protection for people's individual health information. The other area that needs a very high priority when it comes to pharmaceuticals is making sure that safety and quality are at the top of the agenda. At the moment the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme works in such a way that people do not have to prove their eligibility. Concessional patients such as pensioners must produce a health card, but no proof of eligibility is currently required for the general benefit which all of us are entitled to. It therefore has been difficult for pharmacists to determine the entitlement status of the customer or to recognise `doctor shoppers'. The desirability of tightening the legislative requirements to make sure that pharmacists can check a customer's eligibility is therefore recognised, but it must be ensured that we are doing it in a cost-effective way. I am not sure that this bill really achieves that.The bill will require doctors and other prescribers to put the patient's Medicare number on each prescription. It will allow pharmacists to check who is eligible for the PBS and will assist the Health Insurance Commission and pharmacists to identify doctor shoppers. When fully implemented, the government will not pay pharmacists unless they have checked the person's Medicare number and the expiry date before dispensing medicines. In addition, if the number is incorrect when compared with the Health Insurance Commission data, pharmacists will be required to actually track down the customer in order to correct their Medicare number or to obtain the balance of the payment for the pharmaceuticals. The bill permits pharmacists and doctors to keep the Medicare numbers for future use for the same patients but requires them to maintain the privacy of this information. The bill creates various offences for disclosing or misusing Medicare numbers. To that degree, privacy of the Medicare number certainly is protected.There are various aspects of the scheme, though, that we have had representations about and that do need more careful thought and design. A key concern has been the speed with which the government proposes to implement the arrangements. There are three stages, leading to July 2001, through which implementation is going to proceed. Initially, pharmacists are going to get a discretionary power to request a Medicare number from a person presenting a prescription and, with that person's consent, will be allowed to store that number. This phase will only operate for a few weeks because, unfortunately, it has taken the government a very long time to get this legislation into the parliament for debate.From 1 January next year—not very long away—the pharmacist must ask for the Medicare number. If the number is not provided, the person will not be eligible to receive the pharmaceutical benefit and will have to pay the full price. Some people who do not carry around their Medicare card might get a rude shock, particularly if they are down at the beach during the summer holidays and need to fill a prescription. The third phase starts on 3 July next year, when the provision of a Medicare number will become mandatory both for the doctor and for the pharmacist. There are provisions allowing the correction of Medicare numbers during the phase-in, but after that the rules become quite strict.The larger concern, though, has been that this bill is simply the beginning, the thin edge of the wedge, of what has been foreshadowed by the government in the Better Medication Management Scheme, which the government has indicated it will introduce legislation for shortly. The opposition believes that the public really needs to see the full picture and that there needs to be greater consultation with consumers and health professionals, who will be affected by what is coming next. While the opposition certainly supports amending laws to try and stamp out fraud, we do not want this to be done at the expense of access to medicines in emergency situations—people being caught without their Medicare card because they did not know that having it with them was necessary—or by the new system compromising a patient's privacy.There are a number of people who may not have Medicare cards but who are nevertheless eligible for pharmaceutical benefits—people with disabilities, for example, in the care of a guardian; people who are itinerant; Aboriginal people who do not necessarily carry their Medicare cards all the time; visitors from overseas countries with which Australia has a bilateral agreement; people in emergency situations; and people who just lose their cards. So we need to make sure that, in the implementation of the bill, access to subsidised medicines is not denied to those eligible people. The scheme will need to include a number of these exemptions. I think it would be helpful if these exemptions were made clear before the bill goes through the parliament. One of our primary concerns is with privacy and whether the mechanisms used in this bill—that is, for the first time the public exchange of our Medicare numbers—are foreshadowing the government's overall approach to medical records and the development of a unique patient identifier by the Health Insurance Commission. As I indicated last night in my remarks on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, I am a strong supporter of the need for a unique patient identifier and for electronic health records, but not without national health privacy legislation.We all know—and I am sure this is true for the government as well—that health information cannot be moved online until there is a unique patient identifier developed that can be used to access all the health information held about a particular person, regardless of where that information is held, whether it is in records held by a hospital, medical records held by a doctor or pharmaceutical records held by a pharmacist. I say again that such an identifier represents a very significant threat to a patient's privacy unless strong health privacy legislation is first put in place. Certainly the legislation that has just gone through the House of Representatives is not sufficient in that regard. It will not protect people's health privacy, and I indicate again the opposition's serious concerns with that privacy legislation as far as health is concerned.So long as that health privacy legislation does not exist, in our view it is certainly premature to be introducing a unique patient identifier. As I said, there is every sign that the Medicare number on people's cards is going to be used in this way with this bill. There are ways to overcome this problem, to make sure that people can have a unique patient identifier that is confidential and that does not appear on the card itself. The last thing we want is someone else picking up our Medicare cards and being able to read the number. At the moment these cards float around but, because we know there is nothing confidential that can be got from them, nobody worries about it too much. Nobody wants that number to be the unique patient identifier. We need to make sure that the identifier is confidential so that nobody can either accidentally or otherwise hack in and read our medical records.The second privacy concern is how the government will use this information, this information that is going to be collected by pharmacists using the Medicare number, once it is collected. The bill is not clear on this issue. It is certainly the case that there are currently specific Privacy Commissioner guidelines about the use of pharmaceutical data and restrictions on matching that with medical benefits data. That is true. During briefings that we have had with departmental officers they have indicated to us that the data collected, based on our Medicare numbers, will not be matched against existing medical benefits or pharmaceutical benefits data. But there is nothing in the legislation to stop this. If the government could indicate how that is going to be protected, we would appreciate it. We are concerned about the ambiguities that this might create, because it sounds like there are now going to be three data sets collected by the Health Insurance Commission, and it is just not clear what the protections between them will be.The same concern arises with what we understand is being worked out for the better medication management scheme. What privacy rules will be put in place to protect information that is collected through that scheme, and what data matching arrangements will be allowed? What controls have been put in place to protect an individual's privacy, and what action will the Health Insurance Commission be able to take against any person on the basis of this information alone? There are a number of these issues, particularly relating to privacy, that we certainly think still require some answers. If the uncertainty about the operation of the unique patient identifier is allowed to continue, I am concerned that it will harm public confidence in the whole issue of the development of electronic health records. That would be very unfortunate. It would be a major setback, as national standards for electronic health records and decision support systems are essential if we are going to improve the safety and quality of our health services. We are going to need national agreement on what should be included in those electronic records, who should have access to them and what constitutes acceptable security. To reiterate, a separate health privacy regime is urgently needed, not one that is based on voluntary codes, which is all we are going to get from the government's current privacy legislation. I ask the government to clear up a number of these issues. Members of the public that I have talked to about these issues are very concerned because the detailed plans about how electronic health records and unique patient identifiers are going to go forward and what the protections will be are just not clear.The effectiveness of the measures contained in this bill is also questionable. Under the new scheme, it will not be necessary to have your Medicare card to have a prescription filled. You only have to be able to quote your family's Medicare number and the expiry date of the card, so agents will still be able to go into the chemist shop and collect your prescription if they can quote your Medicare card number. This will leave open most of what we understand to be the currently used methods for ineligible people to obtain a prescription: borrowing a card, using a stolen card or impersonating a friend. We cannot see how this is going to impact on any of the measures that currently exist. It would appear not to be effective even against a person with a stolen prescription impersonating the person to whom the prescription was originally given, because they can simply write down the Medicare number as it appears on the prescription themselves. We are also worried that it will not be effective against doctor shopping if there is no data matching. That really goes back to the question I asked before: what data matching will take place to ensure that doctor shopping is reduced?So we are concerned that the bill might not make much impact either way—by controlling the use of the PBS by ineligible people or by stopping abuse by doctor shoppers. Whether the Commonwealth will be able to save the amount they anticipate saving is, I have to say, more than a bit doubtful. The saving also looks like it might be offset by the increased costs incurred by implementing these requirements. Already, the Pharmacy Guild has put in a claim for increased payments because of the work involved in checking each prescription. I gather that this was not included in the recently finalised pharmacy agreement. So if, for example, the government pays more than 15c for each transaction for the additional work of checking the Medicare numbers, then the entire savings, even on the government's numbers, could be wiped out. It certainly does not look like a very efficient measure to control fraud and, also because of the cost of all the necessary checks, it looks like the cost might outweigh the savings, if they exist at all.Pharmacists are also going to have to carry the penalty for any incorrect information being supplied to the Health Insurance Commission, and everyone would understand that they certainly have concerns about that. The government has recently signalled to us that they intend to introduce a whole lot of amendments to this bill. There are six pages of amendments to deal with oversights in the original drafting. I gather it is now common for pharmacists to swipe Medicare cards—although I have never seen my Medicare card swiped—to make an electronic claim on the PBS using the Health Insurance Commission's claims transmission system, and that is provided for under the National Health Act.These extensive amendments are necessary because the bill unfortunately seems to have been prepared in haste. However, the fact that the government is prepared to listen to representations they have received is a good sign, and we will look at the amendments carefully. Hopefully, they will address some of the concerns that we have raised. It is appropriate that the bill should incorporate provision for electronic transmission of claims. We are not opposed to that because, of course, the underlying objective is to make the system more efficient and accurate without reducing the protection of private information. I am disappointed that the government has introduced this legislation separately from the Better Medication Management Scheme, because that scheme promises to develop an electronic system for patient medication records that can be accessed by doctors, pharmacists and patients. That scheme will identify and prevent medication errors at a pharmacy level and it should be introduced in a complementary way to the scheme that we are debating in this bill, which is aiming to reduce inappropriate prescribing as well.The whole question of inappropriate prescribing has a major impact on the health of Australians, particularly the elderly and those people on multiple medications. And that flows through not only to people who are being cared for in the community but also to people who get a lot of their medications via hospitals. It has been estimated that a substantial number of admissions of the elderly to hospital are the result of problems with medication. A lot more effort needs to be channelled into improving the decision making of prescribers of medications and minimising the extent to which unnecessary or unwise therapies are prescribed in the first place.Not so long ago I saw an excellent example of this taking place with the South Australian Division of General Practice, who have developed an innovative program to better manage the prescribing of benzodiazepine in the southern region of Adelaide. Unfortunately, that has not been replicated elsewhere. We need to do a whole lot more to improve the quality use of medicines so that adverse results from using medications are reduced.I have been visiting a lot of hospitals and have met people who are very involved in developing new ways to improve quality and safety in our health system. It is interesting that this issue was the subject of the editorial in today's Australian. The point that is made very powerfully in the editorial in the newspaper today is how slow we have been to address these issues. The editorial says that back in 1995 the federal government was presented with evidence showing that about 18,000 Australians die each year because of medical errors. This is a huge number of people who die because of medical errors that do not need to take place. The editorial correctly says that we have been slow to come up with answers and implement changes.The government only just last year established the Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. As the editorial says, it took four years for the government to establish this council—even though the alarm bells about medical mistakes were ringing some time ago. It really is a very tentative step by this government, particularly when you compare it with what is happening in the United States and the United Kingdom where much more dramatic action is being taken to reduce medical errors. The roll-out of information technology throughout our health care system is about making sure that these medical errors are reduced and that we support those at the front line in our health system with evidence so that they can improve the services that are delivered.I am pleased to see that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has finally announced the National Institute of Clinical Studies. Unfortunately, the institute's establishment is long overdue. It was first announced in May 1999, and the membership of the board of that institute was only announced last Friday. It has taken the government an inordinate amount of time to get this organisation under way. It is a very important organisation, because it is in that place that we can see the very useful collection of meaningful data that can then be provided to those doctors and other health providers out in the community to improve their practice. Unfortunately, this government has been extremely slow at getting around to doing the things that are necessary to improve the quality of health care—whether in hospitals, general practice or any other part of our health system. It is extremely slow, unfortunately, in only recently establishing a committee and now the Institute of Clinical Studies. It can only be hoped that we will get some much faster action and some more serious attention to what is an enormously serious problem. Eighteen thousand Australians die each year because of medical errors, and yet it is barely talked about and has been given very little attention to date by this government. I hope that during the debate on this bill we can take it a little bit further, strengthen it and make it more effective to guarantee that, certainly, the subsidised use of pharmaceuticals is only available for those who are eligible and that we are able to significantly limit doctor shopping. Unfortunately, certainly with the way the bill is written at the moment, I do not think it will have much impact.13:48:0022417Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—The National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 I am supporting today ensures that only those eligible to obtain prescription medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme do so. The bill will achieve this important aim by gradually introducing a system where a patient's Medicare card will have to be presented when picking up a prescription from the chemist. This will prevent people from using the PBS who are not entitled to, such as people travelling in Australia from overseas. This is another step by the coalition government to help maintain the success and viability of the PBS and to ensure that all Australians continue to have access to subsidised medicines. Importantly, this will be phased in over a period of time, enabling people to get used to the change before its full implementation on 1 July 2001. Patients already know that they have to take their Medicare card when visiting a doctor, and concessional patients already have to produce their health care card when obtaining a prescription from the pharmacy, and so I do not believe that providing their Medicare card will be much more of an impost. Australia has reciprocal arrangements with several countries, including New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and their people will still have access to the PBS—but they must show their passport so that the pharmacist can determine if they are from one of these eligible countries. This will also stop people from overseas obtaining subsidised pharmaceuticals with the intent of taking them home for themselves or other people in their own country.The savings to the taxpayer as a result of this legislation will amount to more than $40 million over the next four years. The spiralling cost of the PBS is often mentioned in this House, as it is quite significant. This financial year it is expected to reach approximately $3.8 billion. On a global scale, however, we fare quite well, with the cost of the PBS representing just under 12 per cent of the total health budget. This is compared to the 16 per cent in France and nearly 18 per cent in the United Kingdom. The United States only spend 7.8 per cent of their health budget on pharmaceuticals.The huge cost of the PBS can be attributed to a number of factors. Some of these, such as the advances of modern medicine, cannot be avoided. It is also worth noting that often the cost of subsidising a particular drug can provide cost savings to the community in the long term due to the marked improvement in health of the patient. Take the drug Celebrex, which has just recently been included on the PBS. The cost to patients has been reduced from an average of about $50 to $60 a month to a maximum of $3.30 for health cardholders and $20.60 for general patients. This drug is a major breakthrough in the treatment of arthritis. It is as effective as other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but it produces significantly fewer adverse side effects. People taking Celebrex will have considerably less gastric irritation and fewer hospital visits due to gastric bleeding and they will use fewer analgesics.I am concerned, however, that many Australians, in particular seniors, are being overmedicated. Not only is this a strain on the PBS but it also has the potential to be life threatening to the patient. Often people take so many drugs that they would not be able to list them when sitting in front of a doctor. It is difficult to obtain statistics on this but I know from experience how drugs can react dangerously in a person's system if they are already taking another drug that is incompatible. People also hoard medicines. This is costly for both the patient and the PBS, as well as dangerous to the patient and their family, particularly children who risk poisoning themselves. Unfortunately, there are also some people who doctor shop for scripts that they can sell to substance abusers. The drug of choice used to be the self-injecting pethidine, scripts for which people would obtain and then sell. These days people obtain scripts for benzodiazepines, like Serapax and Valium, opiates and the amphetamine based drugs like dexamphetamine and Ritalin. This is one of the important issues that will be addressed when we introduce the better medication management scheme or HealthConnect. That is a separate initiative from the one I am speaking on today but they both relate to the accountability of the distribution of pharmaceuticals in this country. I know there are some groups concerned about the privacy issues that are inevitably raised when discussing use of data monitoring and electronic databases. It is not that the information on patients is not already there now. It can be found if someone wants to find it but it is not easy to do so. Part of the push behind HealthConnect is to utilise the technology that is now available to us and enter into electronic medicine. This will allow information on a patient to be easily available to the two most important parties—the patient and the GP. This will also greatly assist hospitals, which will be able to access a patient's history if they come into the hospital unconscious or unable to communicate to the medical staff. Of course, the introduction of a system like HealthConnect needs safeguards to ensure the community will readily accept the new system without privacy concerns. I believe patients' privacy will be enhanced compared to the current paper based system. Access can be restricted to authorised users and patients will be able to find out who has accessed their records.The issue of a central register or database was raised at a recent hearing of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into substance abuse, which I attended. Users know which doctors to go to around the metropolitan area to obtain scripts for addictive drugs, such as Rohypnol, or `rohies' as they are known on the street. This is another area where we need to crack down on doctor shopping. People desperate for a script can be quite good actors and there is no way for a GP to know what their history is, how many scripts they have obtained that week, or whether they are taking part in a treatment program such as the methadone or naltrexone programs. It would become much more difficult for substance abusers to obtain these prescription drugs if there was some kind of limit—which I would support—that would set off alarm bells if the limit was reached.People's lives are at stake here and it is important to have the courage to put in place this kind of initiative. We owe it to the parents of the kids who have become mixed up with drugs. They come to these inquiries expressing their anger and amazement at how easy it is to obtain these drugs quite legally through our health system. If we do not accept that we need to accurately record and police doctor shopping, we are, in a sense, accepting a legally sanctioned drug trade. Another issue worth noting in the debate on the PBS is the concern that many of the drugs that feature on the top 10 prescribed items in Australia are for ailments that could also be treated by a healthier lifestyle. In 1998, doctors wrote 4.2 million prescriptions for simvastatin, a drug that helps to lower cholesterol. This cost the government $191 million in one year alone, as it was the number one drug on the PBS in terms of expenditure. Australians are fast catching up with people in the United States in adopting a more sedentary lifestyle. Combine that with a high consumption of saturated fats and refined carbohydrates and it does not take a doctor to work out which direction our cholesterol levels are heading in this country—and it is certainly not south. I know there are some people who are genetically predisposed to having high cholesterol levels because their livers produce too much, but many cases are lifestyle induced. Another drug in the top 10 prescribed medicines is temazepam, which treats short-term insomnia in adults. Doctors wrote out 3.3 million of these prescriptions in 1998. This is a reflection of the increasingly stressful lifestyles many of us have, and it is of great concern to me that patients will continue to rely on sleeping pills to alleviate a symptom rather than treat the cause. Temazepam is also a favourite drug of choice for substance abusers. It is important to ensure money is spent on education campaigns that focus on lifestyle and preventative medicine if we want to maintain a viable PBS. It is also important for the health and wellbeing of our community. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.13:58:0022419Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—The National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 that is before us today has one major aim: to prevent the fraudulent use of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, particularly by tourists, overseas visitors, those with nonresident status and Australian doctor shoppers. The introduction of measures preventing the misuse of Australian taxpayers' money is something that Labor supports unreservedly. Therefore, it is not surprising that we are supporting this bill. While the extent and cost of this type of PBS abuse is unknown, the government estimates that the measures it will put in place will save about $16 million per year over the next five years, or 0.55 per cent of last year's total PBS expenditure. In order to achieve these savings, doctors will have to ensure that they record a patient's Medicare number on each PBS prescription. The patient will have to ensure that they are able to present their Medicare number with their prescription to the pharmacist for verification. The pharmacist will have to check the Medicare number against the number on the prescription and record it on their computer database. Finally, the HIC check the number recorded against their own database to make sure they match.In order that these savings can be realised, the cost of operating the system will have to be less than 15c per prescription. If it costs that or more, the savings generated by the system will be eaten up by administration costs. So the government has to rely on the goodwill of general practitioners and pharmacists in the hope that they will not ask for additional payment for the additional work and time that it will take to operate this system. I would imagine that, for pharmacists, the free provision of this additional service will be doubly inconvenient.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice224192241914:00:0022419Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the King's School in Parramatta is planning to spend $16 million to upgrade the school's already impressive facilities? Is the Prime Minister also aware that King's has just announced in this magnificent brochure that it plans to spend $3.5 million to build a learning and leadership centre which will contain a library, information technology centre, leadership centre and museum? Prime Minister, with its fantastic existing facilities and its $16 million building plans, why you do believe that the King's School needs an extra $1.4 million a year in federal funding when needy government and non-government school parents have to hold fetes, quiz nights and barbecues just to repair buildings and buy basic sporting equipment?22419Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the first part of the question is no, I do not examine the brochures put out by every school around Australia. I do, however, examine the outcomes of the application of the new policy introduced by the government. That examination demonstrates to me the essential fairness of the new SES system. That new system means that schools like the King's School will end up receiving vastly less resources from the government than the more needy independent schools. Instead of playing this rather old-fashioned, very foolish class game that the Australian Labor Party is playing which we have seen introduced into this debate—I might say promoted this morning by an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that purports to list the schools attended by different members of the frontbench of both the government and the opposition—I would have thought that what is relevant is not what school you went to or what school your children went to but the quality of your policy. I decry absolutely the way in which the Labor Party and others have sought to smear people by some reference to the school they went to. I simply say to you, Mr Speaker, that the Labor Party is trying to introduce the politics of class and envy into this debate. The real evidence of that is to actually analyse what the leaders of the Catholic system and the leaders of all the other independent school groupings in Australia have said. Without exception, the leaders of the Catholic education system, the leaders of the independent schools, the leaders of the Christian schools and the leaders of all the other non-government schools have applauded the government system on the grounds of fairness. Even more importantly, and it must be ringing in the ears of the Leader of the Opposition, every single Labor Premier who came to the meeting last Friday endorsed without qualification the government's new funding formula—every last one of them. During the discussion they were given the opportunity, and they all said, `We don't want a cent taken away from independent schools.' That is what Peter Beattie said. He did not wave brochures around at me. He did not play the politics of class. He did not play the class card, as the Leader of the Opposition is doing. It is a tawdry attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to play the class card—a very tawdry attempt. The reality is that the new funding formula will result in the neediest non-government schools getting the most help and the less needy getting the least help. That is eminently fair on any measure.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—The difference between them has changed dramatically, and you know it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.2242014:05:0022420Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of Australia's aims for the forthcoming climate change negotiations to be held in The Hague on 13 November? Is the minister aware of any alternate policies?22420Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her question and recognise the stalwart support she gives to her constituents as the government addresses this difficult issue. This government has said all along that Australia is prepared to make a fair contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and that has been a consistent position of this government. But what we have also said is that we are not prepared to carry an unfair share of the burden. When the government, represented by Senator Hill and officials from a number of departments, goes to the sixth Conference of the Parties in The Hague, we will attempt to achieve an outcome which minimises the cost to Australia of implementing the Kyoto protocol. The two most important issues for us in that respect will be securing workable and efficient rules for sinks and for international emissions trading and the other flexibility mechanisms in the protocol. Successful outcomes on these issues would not only reduce the impact on our economy but also increase the likelihood of countries with greenhouse targets under the Kyoto protocol actually being able to meet those targets. Such a sensible outcome in The Hague will maximise the likelihood of achieving the protocol's environment objectives.This country has already taken a lead with domestic greenhouse programs totalling nearly $1 billion over five years. But climate change is a global issue and it requires global solutions, especially with emissions from developing countries set to exceed those of developed countries within the next decade. Commitments by large developing country emitters will be necessary, otherwise jobs in energy intensive industries could move from Australia to developing countries without any environmental benefit whatsoever. So the government wants to avoid a situation where Australian exporters are burdened by strict greenhouse constraints and yet some of our competitors have no constraints at all. This is an important conference, the meeting in The Hague, but I think the Australian public can rest assured that this is a government which not only takes its environmental responsibilities seriously but is prepared to stand up very strongly for Australia's interests in The Hague. 2242114:08:0022421Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is also addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that this glossy brochure also outlines magnificent plans by King's School to build colonnades to give the school a `green heart', quadrangles `to give a beautiful ambience to the academic precinct' and an `attractive arrival point to the School [because] first impressions are important and this area will need to announce The King's School as a quality place of learning'? Prime Minister, do you think it is better to spend $1.4 million of taxpayers' money on colonnades, quadrangles and ambience for the King's School or on doubling special education funding for 3,000 students? Prime Minister, how much more ambience does King's need?22421Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I think it is—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It think it is better to have a funding policy for independent schools which results in the more needy independent schools getting a lot more, and that is exactly our policy.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call and I will deal very sternly with anyone who interrupts him.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I also think it is better—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think it is better education policy to have state governments matching rates of federal government increased support for government schools instead of lagging behind them. For example, it is my advice that in the current financial year federal government funding for government schools to the state of Queensland has risen by 4.4 per cent, whereas state government funding for government schools in Queensland has risen by only 0.8 per cent. It is my advice that federal government funding for government schools in New South Wales has risen by four per cent, yet state government funding for government schools in New South Wales has risen by only 1.9 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—So, instead of—PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition might bear in mind my earlier comments.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—So, instead of the Labor Party desperately carrying on in this class driven fashion—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is a class driven fashion. They do not have any argument based on policy; they have an argument based on class and envy, and the Australian people have rejected that in the past and they will reject it again.2242114:11:0022421Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Is the minister aware of any new information in relation to alternative price monitoring for Australian consumers that deals with the introduction of the new tax system? Minister, are you aware of any alternative policies and what these policies would mean for Australian consumers? 22422Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Forde for her question. Over the last few weeks we have revealed some of the price watch information provided by the Australian Labor Party after the impact of the GST has been taken in on prices, and on reflection perhaps I have been a little bit tough on the member for Lilley.Government members—Really!DK6Mr HOCKEY—I have. I know it is hard for some on this side to believe—and some people in the Labor Party do not believe me either. I have been a little bit harsh, because I thought that the member for Lilley was the only person running a price watch program on the Labor Party side of the House. That was before some information was presented to me in relation to another Queensland member of the Labor Party. I happened to come across a copy of the Southern Star, which has the words:I have decided to establish a local GST pricewatch here on the south side. It is going to take a while to set it up properly. On a monthly basis we will take a standard basket of goods and analyse price changes,” ... we will on volunteers, and so on.The member for Griffith runs a price watch survey for February of this year, covering Coles, Franklins and Woolworths. He talks about the GST price watch in February, talks about `70 days until the GST' in April and then we come to The Rudd Report in July. I was running a bit short of information then and I decided to go to his web site, which in fact was updated on 28 July. I went to his web site today, looked for the price watch information and I came across a price survey from February—and then it stops. So what happened to the monthly analysis for April, May, June, July, August and September? What is it with the Labor Party members from Queensland and numbers?Honourable members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—What is it? Without taking the focus off the member for Lilley, I was asked about alternative policies. I went to the member for Lilley's webpage—and he has now updated it with the August figures—and it took me a little while but I found some immortal words where the member for Lilley says in a hushed tone in the House—because they have got his words in the House:And that is why, we have an emphatic, an absolutely emphatic commitment to roll back the GST.You can press play and hear it again! If the Labor Party's own price survey says that consumers are better off with the GST, then why does the Labor Party want to roll it back? We are watching individual members of the Labor Party, we are watching the commitments they made before 1 July, and we will continue to look for their words in the printed form. When it comes to roll-back, I think Australian consumers deserve to know why the Labor Party want to make a basket at the supermarket more expensive if they ever get elected into government.2242214:15:0022422Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the King's School latest fundraising campaign has already raised more than $2.8 million? Is it correct that these donations are likely to attract tax concessions of up to $1.4 million? Prime Minister, if the Australian taxpayers have already given the King's School a $1.4 million tax break, why do they need another $1.4 million a year under your new school funding system?22422Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of the particular fundraising activities of the King's School or, indeed, of other schools, other than a residual understanding of the fundraising activities of particular schools with which my children were associated several years ago. But I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is my understanding that tax deductibility of the type he referred to was, of course, maintained during the whole time the Labor Party was in government. Therefore, I assume he is not attacking that principle.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the King's School Foundation Capital Appeal, which details the extent of the tax benefit that each donation is expected to attract and is why the Labor Party included these factors in the calculation of funds they gave them.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He cannot advance an argument in seeking leave. Leave not granted. 2242314:17:0022423Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer please inform the House of the results of new surveys on the implementation of the new tax system and how this compares with the results of earlier surveys?22423Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. The House has been rather well informed by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation of the exploits of the member for Lilley in relation to his price watch activities and the exploits of the member for Griffith. We also recall the exploits of the member for Melbourne, who doctored a price survey which he put out by not releasing the full details.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a previous ruling of yours, where a matter has been alleged and refuted on a personal explanation, it cannot be repeated.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer was commenting on new surveys relative to older surveys. I felt his comment was entirely relevant. If I think he is unfairly maligning the member for Melbourne, I will take action.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Rather than go over that episode, I will table an article from the Herald Sun of 20 July 2000 headed `Labor exposed in GST cover-up: half truths leave Beazley stranded'. I have also just come across a very interesting new survey on the new tax system, which is from the Dickson report, headed, `Results of electorate wide issues survey: responses to small business questionnaire on the GST'. The Dickson report says that, of the small business questionnaire on the GST, 53 per cent said it had a negative impact, 21 per cent said it had a positive impact, 22 per cent said it had no impact and 13 per cent made no comment. I was rather intrigued by this return because, if 53 per cent said negative and 21 per cent said positive, which would make 74 per cent, 22 per cent said no impact, which would make 96 per cent, and 13 per cent had no comment, that makes it one of the most outstanding survey results I have ever come across. The member for Dickson sends out 100 questionnaires and gets 109 replies. It is like voting for the Queensland ALP. The turnout is 109 per cent of those on the electoral roll!I would have thought that this is a rather obvious point because, with a pie chart, if it were more than 53 per cent, it would have to be more than half the pie; yet the 53 per cent who had a negative impact is less than half the pie, quite clearly. I am not quite sure what sort of pie chart this is. I thought it could be a porky pie chart or, if one were eating it, a humble pie chart! Whichever way it goes, it falls into a grand Queensland Labor Party tradition—the member for Dickson and the member for Griffith gilding the lily, with old Swanie there with his surveys. I table the survey for the information of the House.2242314:22:0022423McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and it concerns education in regional Australia. Minister, as a King's School old boy, did you receive a copy of the brochure and the list referred to by the Leader of the Opposition which show that King's School received donations of more than $1.5 million from only 11 donors? Minister, do you believe your old school really needs an extra $1.4 million of taxpayers' money when it has access to such extraordinarily generous private donations? Minister, how many schools in rural and regional Australia—TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr Southcott—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not heard anything in this question so far which relates to the minister's ministerial responsibility. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Boothby is quite right: there is nothing thus far that is related to the minister's responsibility. The Chief Opposition Whip had not concluded his question. I thought he may have been going to make reference to the minister's regional responsibilities, and it was for that reason that I allowed him to continue. 4I4Mr LEO McLEAY—Minister, how many schools in rural and regional Australia can budget for and receive old boy donations of anything like $1.5 million?22424Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I note that the honourable member asked me whether I would comment as an old boy of the school. I am an old boy of the school. I regret to have to inform the class warriors opposite that I cannot apologise for that. I can acknowledge that I was fortunate to attend it. I will make a few points that I think might be relevant in this debate. Yes, there are some very wealthy parents and wealthy people involved in that school community. There are also many who are not so wealthy—there really are. There are also, I think it is fair to say, many parents in parts of the country who are not in a position to find it easy to educate their children: (a) they find it hard to raise the finances and (b) they struggle against the real problems that isolation can bring when you are trying to educate your children. Indeed, in my own case—I do not know what members of the House will make of it—I actually did not go into a classroom until I was nine years old, because of isolation. A large part of the reason I went to that school is that there were no other ready options—there really were not. The second part of your question goes to what we have done for schools in rural and regional areas. I will make several points about that, but the first and foremost is that I have a very large number of small independent schools in my electorate. To be even-handed about this, I want to say that I am enormously impressed—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—You are obviously not really interested in any sincere answer to this—obviously not. I am enormously impressed by the quality of work that some of those schools do. There is a small independent school at Wellington in my electorate, the staff of which have consciously gone out to draw children from very disadvantaged backgrounds, including the local indigenous community. Do you know what their response is? When I went to visit them recently, they told me that what we have put in place is invaluable for their school, for their community and for the future of the children in the area. Far from advocating change, they thanked me very fulsomely for what the government have done. They believe that we have done a lot to help create a better environment of opportunity for some very severely disadvantaged children in their region. We are about choice. We are about helping parents who often have to make very agonising sacrifices, let alone the decision in the first place, before they make those sacrifices, about how they are going to educate their children. I really believe that what we have done is fair and reasonable. I believe it passes what might be called the pub test. I certainly find that in my electorate.I do not deny at all that the school that I went to is well off. I do not deny that. I do not deny that I was privileged and fortunate to go to it. I find it more than passing strange that the sort of sense I get around this place is that somehow, because I was fortunate enough to go there, I ought to be debarred from trying to make a contribution to public life in this country. You are just pathetic, you really are. I would also point out that I believe that choice is very important. I believe that a lot of Australian children will get better opportunities in life because of what we have done to enhance choice.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Sit down. You're a freak!Honourable members interjecting—5T4Brereton, Laurie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Kingsford-Smith!BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I need no help from the member for Lyons, and the member for Kingsford-Smith is well aware of the fact that he was interjecting.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I seek leave to table a document received by the minister which shows that 11 parents of King's School paid $1.5 million to the King's School foundation.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Mr Speaker, there was an assumption in the question that I have received that document. I have not sighted that document. I may or may not have received it, but you ought not to assume it, and I see no reason why it should be tabled. Leave not granted. 83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—Mr Speaker, I find highly offensive a comment made by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation a couple of moments ago. I would ask that you ask him to withdraw it. Members sitting to my right also found—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair is on his feet!SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for Aged Care!CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs Gallus—We don't care what you find!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hindmarsh will excuse herself from the House under the provisions of standing order 304A. The member for Hindmarsh then left the chamber.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland raised a matter that I could not hear. I do not even know to which minister she was referring, and I am certainly not aware of any minister having made an offensive remark that was audible to the chair. If the member for Shortland wishes to elaborate, I will allow her to do so.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—Mr Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate that I use the word in this House, and the minister for forestry was the minister in question. His remark was highly offensive and heard by a number of members here.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Shortland will resume her seat. If the Minister for Forestry and Conservation made a remark that was unparliamentary, I would ask him to withdraw it.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I have made no unparliamentary remark.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will at least do the chair the courtesy of rising and coming to the dispatch box.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Maribyrnong will also be dealt with shortly.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I made no comment that could be considered unparliamentary. To test that, I will allow you to make the judgment. I called him a creep.83NHall, Jill, MPMs Hall—You did not!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—If you rule that unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation will resume his seat. I find the comment by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation as offensive to me as the comment regularly used by the member for Maribyrnong about the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. I would ask them both to desist; neither was unparliamentary, both were undesirable.2242514:32:0022425Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of any recent research into the performance of Job Network? What evidence exists to show that the government's employment services are performing well at a local level? Furthermore, is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?22425Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Wannon for his question, and I note that unemployment in his area has fallen from a peak of nearly 10 per cent to 6.5 per cent now, thanks in large measure to the policies of the Howard government. I am aware of a questionnaire being distributed by the member for Newcastle, along with an advertisement for a Labor Party fundraising dinner. Surveys of the type being distributed by the member for Newcastle are as easy to rort as membership of the Queensland Labor Party, and the results of any such surveys are as dodgy as the Queensland electoral rolls when people like the member for Lilley are referred to as the `master' of the rolls.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—I find that comment offensive, Mr Speaker, and I ask that it be withdrawn.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—What about forging letters?CT4Costello, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We are asking you.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Manager of Opposition Business. On reflection, I withdraw that warning because I am unaware of who was interjecting on the government side, but members on both sides must be aware that that was quite unacceptable. I have to inform the member for Lilley that, as he is well aware—and this is not a criticism—I was in a conversation about a parliamentary matter with the member for Dickson and, for that reason, did not hear the remark made. I am not avoiding the issue. I simply did not hear the remark made. So I do not know whether it was parliamentary or unparliamentary. I will call the minister and ask him to exercise more restraint. EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, I was simply referring to the fact that the member for Lilley was the Queensland state Labor Party secretary at a time when Labor Party members were rorting the electoral roll.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—The fact is, for the benefit of the member for Newcastle—2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I was not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I recognise the minister and ask him to exercise more restraint.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Notwithstanding that the allegation was inaccurate, how can it in any way be a relevant answer to any question that was in order to the Minister for Employment Services.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is entirely right. As occupier of the chair I was attempting to facilitate the parliament. The member for Lilley made what was not in fact a point of order but I was accommodating enough to allow him to do that without any reprimand. It therefore seemed reasonable to me simply to recognise the minister. I would have thought that that exercise at equity would have been recognised by both sides of the House.22426Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment Services10—For the benefit of the member for Newcastle, I can inform the House that my department has conducted scientific surveys of more than 10,000 jobseekers and employers. The surveys show that people who would use both the CES and the Job Network, and who had an opinion, preferred the Job Network by a margin of three to one. Last week the member for Dickson accused Job Network members of ripping off jobseekers, of profiteering and of kicking vulnerable people off benefits. That is what she was doing last week in this House. This week, the member for Dickson said in her electorate newsletter that organisations like East Coast Training deserve to be showcased. By all means they do, but I challenge the member for Dickson to get behind the 10 Job Network members in her area and to showcase them as well as organisations like East Coast Training.The Treasurer has pointed out something else in the member for Dickson's newsletter, which proves one thing: when it comes to Labor, you can never trust their numbers. The numbers that should be in the member for Dickson's newsletter are these: in March 1996, unemployment in the area of Dickson was 11.9 per cent. Today, unemployment in Dickson has come down to 4.6 per cent, thanks to the great work of the Howard government. 2242614:38:0022426Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that the latest edition of Great Scot, the magazine of the Scotch College family, tells parents and old boys about the recent old boys dinner in the Grant Hyatt ballroom and about the recent school cricket tour to the United Kingdom and the match against Eton College? If he did read that edition of the magazine, did he notice that Scotch's current fundraising appeal has already raised $6.2 million in donations for its new auditorium and theatre? Minister, isn't it a fact that, under your new school funding system, you take no account of the fees, fundraising and facilities at schools like Scotch and King's? Isn't your new funding system your way of making a $1 million donation to your old school?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The last question is out of order and should be withdrawn.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I listened closely to the last question. I felt that the latter part of the question was framed in an undesirable way, but I do not think the question was out of order. 22427Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The government's policy for funding non-government schools is part of a massive investment in schooling which this government is currently making, and it produces increases in funding for non-government schools and government schools. In fact, the former school of the member for Dobell, De La Salle, has undoubtedly benefited enormously from the fair funding and the recognition of needs of the Catholic systemic and non-systemic schools under the government's funding arrangements. I do not think anybody—and I am sure the member for Dobell was not implying this—would think that the government's funding arrangements are related to the particular schools to which members of the government or the opposition went. One of the great features of this system is that it puts, for the first time, a clear downward pressure on school fees. It makes schools a great deal more accessible, regardless of the efforts that parents make. Let us make it quite clear that when the opposition talks about capital funding for these schools, this is all money raised by parents. The government is not making capital contributions to schools such as King's School. All these funds are being raised by parents.The government's funding arrangements for non-government schools are exceedingly fair. They are based on an objective measure of the needs of parents, not on the prejudices of the Labor Party and not on the views of the Australian Education Union—for whom you are making a very considerable down payment in this rhetoric of envy that you are producing at the present time. Schools serving high income communities will be paid 13.7 per cent of the amount that would be paid if the child went to the local government school. A school like King's, for example, will be paid at 31 per cent of the rate that would be paid if the child were sent to the local government school. So Parramatta High down the road gets $8,000 from the taxpayer and capital funding from the taxpayer. I am not saying that this is true for Parramatta High in recent times, but many government schools are getting capital grants from the taxpayer of well over $1 million, because this money is directed according to need. A school like King's, therefore, gets 31 per cent of the cost of sending a child to a government school, and that equates to $2,500 per student in 2004, compared to total government funding of $8,000 for the government school down the road.The utter hypocrisy of the Labor Party in this matter is shown by the fact that they object to a school which principally services regional and rural Australia—where there has been a big income loss—getting 31 per cent of the cost of sending a child to a government school, whereas under their funding system they were prepared to fund a school such as Loreto Kirribilli, serving high income communities on the North Shore of Sydney, at 40 per cent. They claim that 30 per cent is too much for a school serving rural and regional Australia, but 40 per cent is not too much for a school serving well-to-do communities on the North Shore of Sydney. That is the Labor Party's utter hypocrisy on this matter. If one wants to understand this contemptible line of questioning coming from the opposition, one only has to reflect on the fact that they desperately need the foot soldiers of the Australian Education Union out there at the polling booths at the next election. This rhetoric is just a way of making a down payment on the next election campaign. But in the end, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, he will pass this legislation in the Senate. He is so opposed to it that he will pass this legislation in the Senate. He hates it so much that it will become Labor Party policy when the Labor Party passes this bill in the Senate. 2242714:46:0022427Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—Is the Attorney-General aware of moves to disallow the Western Australian native title regime? Would the Attorney-General inform the House of the impact this move would have on Western Australia's mining and pastoral industries? 22428Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. It is extremely disappointing to see that the Labor Party is continuing to play its game of political chance with the state based native title regimes after allowing a Labor state to succeed in introducing its own native title regime—albeit only a half-baked scheme—in Queensland. Labor is going to knock out a scheme in a state with a coalition government. Mr McMullan interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is defying the chair. The Attorney-General has the call. The Manager of Opposition Business, better than anyone else in this chamber, knows the forms of the House and what is available to him if he feels that a comment needs to be made. 7V5Mr WILLIAMS—The member for Fraser, whom you have just been indirectly addressing, Mr Speaker, signalled Labor's intention to move a disallowance motion in the Senate only hours after the determination in relation to Western Australia had been tabled. With such a quick reaction there must obviously have been a very detailed consideration of the extensive explanatory statement that was tabled at the same time. The resource sector is a key industry for both WA and for Australia. It earns vital export dollars and it provides jobs for indigenous and non-indigenous people alike. The Premier of Western Australia is wont to say that Western Australia has 10 per cent of the population and produces 25 per cent of the export earnings. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—I have heard him say that. 7V5Mr WILLIAMS—The Prime Minister says that he has heard him say that. The consequence of that is that uncertainty over native title has a significant impact on exploration and mining investment, with consequences for all Australians. According to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, exploration expenditure in WA has fallen by 43 per cent from its peak in 1997; gold exploration has fallen by 60 per cent over the same period; annual exploration expenditure is $268 million a year less than in 1997; and outstanding tenement applications have grown from nil at the end of 1995 to 11,000 in 1998 due to native title complications. All federal members and senators have today been sent a letter seeking support for the WA regime. The letter was signed by six presidents of six organisations: the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, the WA Farmers Federation and the Forest Industries Federation—all involved with employers and providing employment to indigenous and non-indigenous people alike. In that letter, the presidents say: We contend that the scope for successful native title agreements between WA stakeholders could be greatly enhanced by allowing them more direct local control and involvement through the mechanisms of the proposed state legislation. Conversely, Senate full or partial rejection would seriously threaten future progress. Despite all this, it appears that Federal Labor is trying to compensate for its hypocritical deal on Queensland native title by threatening to throw out the WA regime. The member for Fraser is accusing the Court government of playing politics and being deliberately provocative with native title. The Court government has always made its intentions quite clear. WA wants its own solutions to native title—procedural requirements relating to certain mining tenements and compulsory acquisitions on pastoral lease and reserved land that have been specifically designed to suit WA. But it remains to be seen how Labor will explain its duplicity in the course of the coming state campaign to the people of WA, especially those in the places in the member for Kalgoorlie's electorate where mining is the lifeblood of the community, indigenous and non-indigenous alike.Distinguished Visitors2242810000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am pleased to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Father Michael Tate, former Minister for Justice and former Ambassador to the Netherlands and the Holy See. I am very pleased to welcome him to the gallery and extend to him a warm welcome on behalf of all members of the House.Honourable members—Hear, hear! Questions Without Notice224292242914:52:0022429Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Leader of the House and Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. My question goes to the issue of workplace productivity. Minister, can you confirm that, in the 50 sitting days until 9 October, you answered 60 dorothy dixers in question time—a productivity rate of 1.2 per day? Can you confirm that, since 9 October, your productivity rate has fallen to just 0.44 per day? This month, with no questions in four days, your productivity rate is zero—a rate beaten by even the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I can see no validity in this question at all. I see no relevance in the preamble to whatever the question may be. I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to come to a specific question.DT4Mr CREAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, can you think of anything that might have caused this dramatic fall-off in your productivity? If these were crane rates, wouldn't you be calling in the dogs and issuing the balaclava—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Curtin.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Curtin.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Curtin will resume her seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had indicated a point of order. I thought when he resumed his seat that he was not pursuing it. That was why I did not pursue it. I recognise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was addressed to the minister in two capacities, one as Leader of the House with responsibility for procedure; and the second went to issues of workplace productivity. This is the minister who wants to come in with individual examples of everyone else's workplace productivity. Why won't he answer his—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The chair has been generous in extending to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to make a point of order. The point of order bore no relevance to the standing orders. I deem the question quite inappropriate. I recognise the member for Curtin. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There are obviously a number of members who do not believe that the chair intends to enforce standing orders. If they want evidence of it, they will not have to wait long in the current climate. That includes the member for McMillan. The honourable member for Curtin has the call.2242914:55:0022429Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware of concerns being expressed by the courts about the extent of litigation from his portfolio? Would the minister inform the House about the growth in litigation in his portfolio and whether this is having an impact on the taxpayer?22429Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. The reports of the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia that were tabled in the parliament last week are very instructive indeed. The report of the Federal Court records that Migration Act cases are a growing part of its workload. Since 1995-96 the number of migration cases has increased by more than 150 per cent, from 331 cases in 1995-96 to 829 cases in 1999-2000. In the court's appellate workload, migration cases in 1995-96 were eight per cent. Last year that had jumped to 36 per cent. That effectively means that people who have had a decision at first instance are appealing more frequently to the Full Federal Court. The High Court's report for 1999-2000 records that the increase in the migration workload has been very significant. In 1998-99 there were 25 single justice hearings involving what they call order nisi applications. By last year that had soared to 173, and 88 per cent of them involved migration matters. This trend is likely to continue. The High Court expressed concern in its annual report saying: These applications consume a large amount of judicial time, particularly in requiring more than one hearing. It is not just the courts that have been expressing this concern. I found a very interesting quote in these terms relating to the plight of the individuals who are seeking remedies. The quote is as follows:The real delay in the refugee determination process occurs when failed applicants decide to pursue litigation. It is the litigation process before the courts that can take years, not the determination process.That was a quote from a minister for immigration, but not in 2000; in 1995. It came from Senator Nick Bolkus.It is obvious that in 1995 the Labor Party recognised that there was a problem, but it does not seem to recognise that any longer. Perhaps it might help the opposition if it were to know that those people who resort to litigation can obtain work rights or can, in fact, remain in Australia lawfully while they work illegally. At present there are 682 active litigation cases involving refugee and migration matters. Those litigants and their families could have work rights or could be working illegally. There have been 1,163 cases resolved during the past year—and, again, they could have been working lawfully or unlawfully. There are 5,000 people who are members of seven class actions currently before the courts. Many of those litigants and their families can get work rights or may be working unlawfully in Australia.The Labor Party has professed to be concerned about people who come to Australia and breach visa conditions and work unlawfully. It professes to be concerned about people working illegally in the Australian community. But, if you take these figures and look at the almost 7,000 people who could be working—R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—and if you add to this the dependants who could be working, you would be looking at something like 13,000 cases.Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Let me just elaborate a little. You know that we locate a very large number of people. When Labor was in office, we saw the location rates fall to something of the order of five or six thousand, and they have risen under this government to of the order of 13,000 a year. When people are located and are being removed from Australia, in well in excess of 50 per cent of the cases they admit to having been working unlawfully in Australia. The point I want to make on this is that there is a way of dealing with this important issue.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler is warned.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—If you have any concern about people working unlawfully and taking jobs from Australians, there is a way you can deal with it, and you can take the load off the courts by instituting a privative clause. In other words, you do not have to be—as you are today—part of the problem; you can be part of the solution.2243015:01:0022430Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer to your review of the IT outsourcing program, which you bravely announced under cover of the Melbourne Cup. Can you confirm that this program was expected to produce savings of $1 billion and that departmental budgets were reduced accordingly? Didn't the Auditor-General find that 40 per cent of the total program had produced only $70 million in savings, only a fraction of the amount budgeted for? Given that these savings are already factored into departmental budgets, how does the government intend to make up the difference—by further cutting programs and services, or by further eroding the already disappearing surplus? 22431Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—In 1997 the government announced a program which involved the market testing of information technology on a whole of government basis for the purposes of determining whether it was appropriate to outsource or not. In fact, that was a program that was first set in place by the then minister for finance, the now Leader of the Opposition. In the process of examining that in 1997, the government took into account some extensive work that had been started under Labor and it was finetuned by the government. It was a proposition at that point in time, which I still stand by, that there was capacity to make savings of about $1 billion over the seven-year life of the contract on a whole of government basis. The Auditor-General recently released a report in respect of the first three of some 10 contracts—in percentage terms, not yet 30 per cent of the outsourcing program. There has been a view expressed by the Auditor-General, a view which is based upon accountancy methodology, that the projected savings that were announced by the government in respect of those three contracts were not in fact as large as they might have been. In fact, those arguments become fairly academic; they are based upon net present value and things like competitive neutrality and also on whether or not there is a return of the assets and whether it is an operating lease or a financing lease. The government stands by its methodology there, because that is backed by the Department of Finance and Administration, and it is the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing that put this information together. The department of finance stands by the methodology, Treasury stands by the methodology, the Australian Bureau of Statistics stands by the methodology and several of the accountancy firms stand by the methodology. So we are now down to a point as to whether the savings are less than they were estimated or projected to be in 1997 when the program commenced. What I can say—and nobody argues—is that there are significant savings to the Australian taxpayers. It is nice to be able to stand up here and say that a program of the government is making savings. For some 13 years, and particularly the last six years, under Labor, this House was all about the cost to the taxpayers of deficit budgets. We know just how accountable the then Labor government were when it came to managing the financial provisions of the Commonwealth. They certainly brought about significant losses—some $70 billion of general government debt in the last five budgets alone. I think that covers the various questions that have been asked by the honourable member for Melbourne. There is a review. It is the mid-term or the midway in respect of this particular program. We have now signed on five contracts out of 10, and it is appropriate at any time for there to be a continuous improvement program in place. It was foreshadowed back in 1998 that there would be an evaluation of both the costs and the benefits. There are savings; they are significant. I stand by the methodology the government used because it is backed by independent people. I certainly stand by what this program has done for regional development and for the creation of jobs and what it has done for the information technology industry, which is a growth area of this economy. It has brought about a significant improvement in the amount of work that is occurring here. This is a growth area of the economy. Australia has significant skills, and this program is assisting the development of those skills, which is very important for the future of this nation.2243115:06:0022431Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of a paid political advertisement in the Australian today which opposes changes to non-government schools funding? Is the minister aware of alternative views to those expressed in this advertisement?84HZahra, Christian, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for McMillan is warned.22432Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Barker for his question. I am aware of a paid political advertisement that appeared in a newspaper today and was signed by 120 supporters of the Labor Party. Those legitimately concerned with funding for non-government schools would be aware of another, perhaps more credible, open letter that has been circulated to senators. This letter, which was coordinated by the National Council of Independent Schools Associations, was circulated again yesterday. The press release with which the National Council of Independent Schools Associations circulated this letter said that Australia's leaders should try to unite and lead the community on the issue of school funding, not divide it with an ill-informed attack on non-government schools. The executive director of the NCISA, Mr Thomson, said the open letter signed by 120 Australians failed the community and missed the point. He questioned the purpose and principle of those who would seek to divide the community by attacking non-government schools. I urge people to instead consider another open letter to the Senate signed by the leaders of Anglican schools, Christian schools, Lutheran schools, Rudolf Steiner schools, Seventh Day Adventist schools, Uniting Church schools, the heads of independent schools and the NCISA. It calls on the Senate to pass the SES legislation, which has the considered support of the independent school sector.When it comes to the fair funding of non-government schools, who should we listen to? Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU, or the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Sydney on behalf of the Anglican Church of Australia? Denis Fitzgerald or the Uniting Church of Australia? Joan Kirner or the Association of Christian Schools? The ACTU and the AEU or the National Catholic Education Commission and the Australian Catholic bishops?The government's fairer funding reforms enjoy the support of the entire non-government sector, of all the major Australian religious groupings, of every major ethnic grouping in Australia and even of all the state premiers. Those running a campaign of opposition to these reforms show their sheer arrogance and what they are prepared to resort to to buy the votes of the Australian Education Union. The non-government schools have been working for years to find an objective, transparent, non-politicised funding system. All the Labor Party has to offer them is a return to prejudice and 19th century stereotypes. It is time for the Labor Party to come into the 21st century. As we know, the Labor Party hates this bill so much it is going to pass it. Cut the posturing and tell your senators to get on with passing the legislation.Opposition member interjecting— XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauran—God, you're up yourself. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Are you up for that too, Pete? Are you going to claim your TA like the telecard? Who paid for your unit?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, my question—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I can understand why you thought you had the call. In fact, I was about to make a comment. But for your untimely intervention, I would have felt it entirely appropriate for me to require the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation to apologise for the remark he made. I am now in a situation where both gentlemen have made remarks that I would regard not as unparliamentary but as unbecoming.2243215:11:0022432Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. I refer to the $2.6 billion you included in the 2000-01 budget for the asset sale of spectrum. Do you still stand by that $2.6 billion for 2000-01? If not, what will the figure be? 22432Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I anticipated that there may be a question in respect of the midyear economic and fiscal outlook and what it might show, because the Treasurer has indicated that that will be released very soon. I would simply indicate to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he should wait until the midyear economic and fiscal outlook is there. Let me also say that as a general rule I do not comment on what the government might expect from any particular asset sale. I do not intend to comment on what we might receive. There are obvious reasons why I would not, and I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that. I think I can just leave it at that. 2243315:12:0022433Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of developments in the introduction of greater competition and diversity in the domestic aviation market. Is it a fact that the standard of service is well ahead of most OECD countries, including the USA, where Bush and Gore may be down to the wire but where you are lucky to get a coke or coffee on a midnight flight?BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned! The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will ignore the latter part of that question.22433Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for Farrer for his question. I note his interest in transport matters, although it usually extends to rail to a greater extent than it does to aviation. I am, nonetheless, delighted to be able to inform the House that the government's policy of encouraging new airline entrants and their activities in the domestic market in this country is really now paying off in a big way. Australian travellers, of course, as we have all noted through the media—and many have noted through booking air fares themselves—are benefiting from a range of excellent discount fares being offered by all airlines in response to very strong marketing by Impulse and Virgin Blue. Many people who have not previously flown, or who have not flown regularly, are now taking to the skies in a big way. This has resulted in a very significant increase in the size of the domestic aviation market. August statistics reveal that the growth of the total aviation market in Australia over the last 12 months has been of the order of 150,000 passengers. It has been even higher, relatively speaking, on the most competitive routes: Sydney-Melbourne is up by 78,000 passengers and Brisbane-Sydney is up by 37,000 passengers. Both Impulse Airlines and Virgin Blue are now recording very healthy load factors. They both seem to be in a very good position to participate in the long term in this very competitive industry. Not only will there be new opportunities on the busy east coast sector but also, and more importantly, there will be more choices for Australian consumers elsewhere. There is plenty of scope for more competition on many more routes. I know those from Western Australia, for example, are watching with great interest, but so are people in rural and regional areas. I believe that there is very good reason for the airlines to accept, to recognise and to act on the importance of maintaining and increasing their services in regional parts of the country. We have seen the ushering in of a new period of affordable airline travel. We are seeing real benefits for the Australian tourism industry, in particular. We are also seeing more jobs in the airline industry as the new entrants establish themselves well and truly on the local scene.All of these government policies—from the very important economic fundamentals that have made investment easier and more attractive through to the leasing of the major airlines, the improvement in terminal facilities and the diversification of operations that that has encouraged and, of course, particularly in relation to Sydney airport, the reservation of slots for new entrants under the slots management scheme—have undergirded and, indeed, encouraged this major expansion in our aviation industry to the benefit of travellers, to the benefit of tourism and to the benefit of jobs growth.2243315:16:0022433McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that on Monday this week you spoke to the member for Sturt regarding his new role as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters? Isn't it a fact that you did so for two reasons: (1) so that you could instruct him as to how to conduct the committee's future proceedings to the advantage of the Liberal Party and (2)— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is aware that under standing order 144 imputations are out of order. There is a distinct imputation in that question. 5I4Mr McMULLAN—What was the imputation, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The allegation is that the Prime Minister instructed the member for Sturt in the way in which he may go about his parliamentary duties.5I4Mr McMULLAN—That is the question that I want to ask him, yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am aware of that. I am saying that the question is not appropriately framed.5I4Mr McMULLAN—The Prime Minister can deny it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There is no point; there is not a matter of—Opposition members interjecting—QI4Price, Roger, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley is warned!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is simply that the question clearly contained an allegation. There are proper forms for people to make allegations. They cannot be made under the cover of a question. On that basis, the proper course of action is for the question as it is to be ruled out of order and for the Speaker to look to the other side for the next question. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the statements made by the honourable member for Fraser were preceded by the interrogative. It is a perfectly reasonable thing under standing orders to ask whether or not a matter is a fact. The member proceeded with this introduction: `Isn't it a fact that you did so for two reasons'. It is a perfectly appropriate question. There is no other way of ascertaining the reasons that the Prime Minister went down this particular road and proceeded to sack others on the way through. It is put in the interrogative and it is open to the Prime Minister to answer it.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whether a proposition is put in an interrogative form or any other form—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is warned.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—the fact of the matter is that there is no form under the standing orders which allows you to disguise an allegation. An allegation of a statement of so-called fact—`is it a fact?'—is nonetheless clearly an imputation, clearly it is out of order and, on that basis, the question should be rejected, as I believe you have done.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have.5I4Mr McMULLAN—If you rule that it is not proper to ask, `Is it a fact that you behaved in this manner?' it means that it is not possible to raise any question concerning allegations of improper behaviour by ministers. On your interpretation, Mr Speaker, we could not have asked, `Is it a fact that you misused your telephone card?' That would have been a question that you say we could not ask. I put it to you that that is reducing the capacity of people to interrogate ministers far below the level that accountability requires.4K6Causley, Ian, MPMr Causley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 147 gives you clear rights as the chair. It says clearly:The Speaker may direct that the language of a question be changed if it seems to the Speaker unbecoming or not in conformity with the standing orders of the House.That gives you clear orders in that area.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Page for the reassurance. 5I4Mr McMULLAN—Mr Speaker, while we persist with the points of order and would like you to reflect on them, I am quite prepared to seek to rephrase the question if it will help you. I do not resile from the points of order, and we would like you subsequently to rule on them. I appreciate we are getting the House in a difficult situation. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The House is not in a difficult situation. It is perfectly clear to the chair that the question was out of order because of the imputations contained in the question. As occupier of the chair, I have endeavoured to accommodate a wide range of questions, which have sometimes included argument, even inference, as ruled out of order under standing order 145, in order to allow the maximum level of penetration of government ministers as the parliament should be able to facilitate. In this instance, however, as I am sure the Manager of Opposition Business is aware, the question was framed in such a way as to make allegations and imputations that could not be allowed to stand unchallenged. I will allow the Manager of Opposition Business to rephrase the question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Mr Speaker, my question is in three parts and it is to the Prime Minister. I will seek to rephrase the first part. Prime Minister, did you instruct the member for Sturt as to how he should conduct the proceedings of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters? Secondly, did you move aside the previous chairman, the member for Eden-Monaro, because of concern over allegations—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question is clearly out of order because the committees in this place elect the chairs. The question is, therefore, clearly out of order.3J4Sawford, Rod, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Port Adelaide is warned. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4Mr McMULLAN—before that committee of his earlier involvement in Liberal Party push polling, breaches of electoral disclosure rules and unlawful use of Northern Territory taxpayers' funds?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business has a third question?5I4Mr McMULLAN—Yes. Thirdly, Prime Minister, will you refer the possible breaches of the law contained in these allegations to the Australian Federal Police with the same alacrity with which you referred the weekend allegations in the Courier-Mail?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I make two points: firstly, the allegations against both the Prime Minister and the member for Eden-Monaro are of such a character that they require a substantive motion, with notice, to the members concerned; secondly—and I refer to page 511 of House of Representatives Practice—this committee is yet to conduct its inquiry and there is a significant risk that this line of questioning will anticipate the findings of the report. It is an assault on the committee and the parliament should not stand for it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I consider that of the three questions asked by the Manager of Opposition Business the second question also made an unreasonable imputation. I will allow questions one and three to stand.22435Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the Manager of Opposition Business let me say that, in all the time that I have known him, the member for Sturt has not been one who has been inclined to take instructions from anybody—let alone from me. I have always found him to be a rather independent spirit. I have frequent discussions with all of my colleagues. As the member for Sturt would acknowledge, I am an inclusive leader. All I can say is that the discussions I have with my colleagues are eminently proper. I also remind the Manager of Opposition Business that, in relation to the member for Eden-Monaro, I actually heard the member for Eden-Monaro on the airwaves, when I was out on an early morning constitutional, explaining why he was no longer going to be chairman of that particular committee. I thought it had to do with a commitment to his electors, which of course is characteristic of both the member for Sturt and the member for Eden-Monaro.As to the question of allegations, my view in relation to allegations made against people is that if they ought to be referred to the police they will be. Insofar as they are brought to my attention, it has always been my practice, where it is appropriate, that they be referred. I would remind the Manager of Opposition Business that there were some extremely woolly allegations made—they would hardly merit the description of `serious allegations'—on the 7.30 Report by Brian Courtice, a former member of this House. They were referred by me to the Minister for Justice and Customs the following day. Unlike the Evans-Beazley protocol, we act quickly. 22436NaN:28:003Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Would the minister advise the House of any new national tourism initiative aimed at growing the domestic market and what impact this will have on tourism activity and jobs throughout Australia?22436Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I commend the member on his interest in tourism. I know that as a former New South Wales minister for tourism working under the previous Hawke-Keating governments he had extreme trouble getting a unified approach to growing the domestic tourism pie. It has been the leadership of this government that has put up $8 million to join a $16 million domestic tourism initiative that is going to grow the domestic pie. This has culminated in the launch this week of an advertising campaign right across Australia using Ernie Dingo telling Australians to take their holidays in Australia. With this program we particularly hope to grow the tourism pie. Rather than leaving our state tourism ministers to fight amongst themselves over pieces of the pie, we are actually going to grow domestic tourism in Australia. It really comes from the leadership that this government has shown in developing this program. We have had Labor for the last 12 months running a big scare campaign on the effects of the GST. We have seen this in the electorates of Lilley, Griffith and Dickson, with predictions of the terrible impacts that were going to come that have not shown through. We have already seen international tourism growing at nearly double-digit figures. With this program working in a unified way across Australia, we certainly expect to see the same with domestic tourism.2243615:30:0022436Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, can you confirm that the 2000 budget assumes that you sell the rest of Telstra and therefore includes a reduced amount of public debt interest outlays? After offsetting lost dividends, how much is this amount? Minister, if you do not know, will you report back to the House later today with the answer?22436Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The budgets which have been delivered now for five years by the coalition government have adopted the same methodology when it came to asset sales that was applied by the previous Labor government for some 13 years. As I indicated in answer to a question earlier in question time, it is not the practice of governments to speculate on what any particular sale might bring. Clearly, one does not speculate for reasons of not giving any indication to the market as to what the government considers the value might be or might not be. The same methodology is adopted in preparing the budget on asset sales as was used by the former Labor government, and the government will continue to apply that methodology. If the honourable member wants to find out what was in the 2000 budget, I suggest that, despite the fact that it is now six months since the documents were released, he might go back and have a look at what was in those papers and examine them a little more thoroughly. But the methodology is the same and I do not intend to speculate or change that. It will not be the practice of this government to change what was previously done by the Labor government when it came to questions of asset sales.2243615:32:0022436Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of recent developments in Australia's trade with East Asia? How will the forthcoming APEC meetings in Brunei help to increase Australia's export opportunities, and are you aware of any threats to Australia's export prospects in the region?22437Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He obviously takes a great deal of interest, representing an electorate that does a considerable amount of export business for Australia. It is interesting to note that, three years after the start of the Asian economic crisis, Australia's merchandise exports to East Asia are at a record high of $55.8 billion. Exports to East Asia are now 66 per cent above the lowest level during the crisis, which was in February 1999. During that time of the Asian economic crisis, Australia diversified into new markets, showing that the government's Asia-plus trade strategy was exactly what was required during that period. We have maintained those new markets as well as regaining our market share within East Asia. Some of the spectacular export performers into that East Asian market are interesting to note. For example, oilseed exports to China have increased from $64,000 worth in 1996 to $406 million worth in 1999-2000. I spoke about our automotive exports yesterday. In 1996 we exported $31 million worth of car parts to Korea. In 1999-2000 that is $103 million worth—certainly a significant increase over that period of time. Later this week the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I will be going to the APEC ministerial meeting in Brunei, and next week the Prime Minister will attend the leaders' meeting in Brunei. Australia has worked within the regional forum of APEC to underpin the success in Asia and East Asia as we have fought back since the depths of the economic crisis. Australia has led the way in strengthening the reporting of progress towards the APEC goals of free and open trade and investment with policies such as the electronic individual action plan, which we presented and led the way with in the ministerial meeting in Darwin earlier this year. Also at that ministerial meeting in Darwin, which I chaired, we agreed to the launch of the BizAPEC.com web site, which gives exporters an opportunity to go through a single portal and access new markets, getting market intelligence and information off the web. Since we launched that BizAPEC site in June of this year, the Australian business community has responded enthusiastically to the site, with the latest statistics showing an average of over 12,000 hits per month from Australian businesses accessing market information through the BizAPEC site. Of course, that will get further endorsement at the Brunei meeting next week. We all know, and Australian exporters know, that the only threat to the current success of Australia's exporters is a possibility of the election of a Labor government in the future and rolling back a lot of the economic reforms we have introduced in this country that have provided a very sound economic base domestically within Australia from which they can launch themselves into the international marketplace. As the statistics continue to show, they have been doing that during our period of government since 1996.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker224372243715:37:0022437Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLP10—Mr Speaker, I address a question to you regarding the conduct of the proceedings of the House. I preface my question by referring to standing order 144 about the content of questions. Also, it is asked in the wake of your ruling concerning the question asked by the Manager of Opposition Business and it relates to what amounts to an imputation. You would be aware that, during question time, a question asked of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs by the member for Dobell contained what some would have seen as an imputation that a decision taken by the minister was not based on public policy grounds but on personal prejudice—in other words, a desire to deliver a million dollars to the school attended by the minister. Whilst naturally I reject that allegation, I accept that it would be consistent with the rules of the House for the member to make that allegation in a debate or in a substantive motion and it would be dealt with in the ordinary fashion. But am I to infer and is the government entitled to infer from your ruling in relation to the earlier question I referred to—that is the one asked by the Manager of Opposition Business—that in future an imputation of that kind against that minister, or indeed against another minister, of a similar character will be regarded as out of order, because quite plainly it is an imputation? I found it highly offensive and I am sure the minister did too. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has in fact not raised a point of order but has asked for a comment from me. What does the member for Dobell wish to do?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—To comment on the same matter, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the member for Dobell, on the same matter.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—If I need to raise a point of order on the Prime Minister's question, I will, but I will address it to you as a question on the same matter.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will hear the member for Dobell.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—You will remember, Mr Speaker, that when I asked my question a member of the government took a point of order on the part of the question that the Prime Minister seems to be taking exception to—I think it was the member for Boothby but I might be wrong. You ruled on that point of order, that you allowed that part of the question to stand, and I do not think it is proper for the Prime Minister to seek to revisit your ruling by way of a question to you.22438SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. It is entirely proper for the Prime Minister to ask the question he has asked and I am very happy to consider it, consistent with the rulings that I have already made today. The Prime Minister may also have noted that a similar imputation was contained in a question that I think was asked of the Deputy Prime Minister.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—No, Mr Speaker; that is not so.10000Mr SPEAKER—I will check the record and if I am in error I will indicate that to the member for Dobell.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000Mr SPEAKER—I am currently addressing the House. I am not aware of having said anything that would prompt a point of order.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—My point of order, Mr Speaker, is that I was the person who asked the Deputy Prime Minister that question, and you are reflecting on me by saying that. 10000Mr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat. As the Chief Opposition Whip would be plainly aware, the chair has just gone out of its way to indicate to the member for Dobell that if there were anything in error in what had been said by the chair I would address that.The Prime Minister has raised a very valid point about the whole question of the level of imputation contained in questions and, not surprisingly, I had opened the standingorders at 144. As everyone is aware, under standing order 144 questions should not contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter. If I were to apply that rule rigidly, few questions would survive. On the other hand, there are imputations made that ought not be allowed to stand and, in an effort to be consistent, I ruled a question out of order today because it did contain imputations that I felt were highly disorderly.I will look at the issue raised by the Prime Minister and report back to the House beyond the next fortnight recess. I believe that in fact the questions that have been allowed have been consistent with questions allowed in the past, but I am more than happy to check what questions have been allowed in the past to ensure that we are not creating a precedent and that the opportunity for members to ask questions is not being eroded and neither is the integrity of the parliament being eroded by the questions asked. The Prime Minister has made a valid point about an issue that caused me a great deal of concern today and for that reason I am happy to pursue it.2243815:42:0022438McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—Mr Speaker, we have no objection to that practice but could I ask you in the process—Government members interjecting—YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—Oh! After all, he is only the Speaker!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs! The whole parliament exists so that people can in fact have a free exchange of views. There is never a licence for anyone to interrupt anyone else who is addressing the parliament in a parliamentary manner.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Mr Speaker, I repeat that I am not rising to express concern about that but to ask you to consider at the same time a second matter, which is the related question of the imputations included in answers. I refer, for example, to today and the answer given by the Minister for Employment Services, but it is only one in a long series of such answers. I understand the difficulty of the standing orders in both matters and simply ask that, when you are considering one, you report in a balanced manner on both. I appreciate that they are both difficult for you. I am very content with your suggestion that you should take them away and consider them, but I would ask you to consider that at the same time. 22439SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I would ask all members to reflect on the fact that of course none of these interventions are necessary if we merely extend to each other the courtesies that we expect to have extended to ourselves.Privilege2243915:44:0022439Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I wish to raise a matter of privilege and the contempt of the parliament. It concerns Corporal Craig Smith, formerly a member of 3RAR. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to all honourable members for not having raised this matter on Monday, the earliest opportunity I had. However, I wished to extend the courtesy to all members of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade of advising them of my intention to raise this matter with you at our regular meeting on Tuesday evening.Following a resolution of the Main Committee on 28 August 2000, terms of reference were agreed for the subcommittee's current inquiry into the conduct of military justice and the alleged events in 3RAR. I table the terms of reference. At its meeting of 3 October, the subcommittee debated whether or not, for its hearing on 6 October, it would need to produce for its own credibility one public witness who could convey the entrenched nature of the brutality. The committee resolved to accept Corporal Smith's courageous offer to appear as the sole public witness from 3RAR. Other witnesses appeared in camera. I table the minutes of the meeting.You may be aware that Corporal Smith claimed that he had already been victimised because of his acceptance of the role of defender of Private Nishimura against charges. The role of defender is to ensure that the proceedings are fair. Further, he claimed that he had been threatened afterwards, that he would be drummed out of 3RAR and that his career was over. This material can be examined in the public record of the interim Hansard transcripts at pages 39 to 42 and in the publicly released submission of Corporal Smith, which has certain words blacked out, making it suitable for release. The balance of the submission has been retained as a confidential submission, available to you from the secretariat. I table the publicly released submission of Corporal Smith and the transcript.Clearly, on 6 October, the committee was concerned about the protection of its witnesses, those who appeared in public and in camera. I wish specifically to draw your attention to questions asked by me to Admiral Barrie, the Chief of the Defence Force, and his answers which appear in the interim Hansard transcript of evidence at pages 7 to 8. I table the transcript. The story of the victimisation to which Corporal Smith was subjected was broken by the ABC news and Lateline on Monday night, 6 November, and again on 7 November. I have videos of those programs for you—they are a bit difficult to table. The death threat graffitied over his barracks at Duntroon was, thankfully, not broadcast in toto. It remained there for some days. He had personal property damaged and he has been removed from barracks to private accommodation for what I understand has been his own safety. I am not privy to the precise nature of these arrangements. I also table transcripts of the Lateline program for 6 November and of ABC News Online concerning the reactions of the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, and those of Major General Simon Willis.I am unaware of any communication to the committee by ministers, by the ADF or by the Army about the recent incidents surrounding Corporal Smith. While the committee hopes to table an interim report, its examination of these matters is far from over and inevitably further witnesses are sought and will be called. I believe that all members of this parliament owe a duty of care to those young men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way in the national interest and serve this country so well. Given the nature of their service, an examination of military justice is an important issue for them. It is fundamental to the proper workings of this parliament that witnesses who come forward to parliamentary committees are not subjected to any form of discrimination or victimisation as a result of evidence tendered to a parliamentary committee. The committees and the parliament must protect its witnesses. These matters are addressed in House of Representatives Practice, Barlin edition, pages 667 to 669 dealing with committees. If I might just quote one section:Witnesses are protected from arrest (other than on criminal charges), molestation, tampering or other acts aimed at deterring them from giving evidence before a committee or punishing or penalising them for having given such evidence under the traditional power of the House to punish contempts.I table those relevant pages as well. I believe that Corporal Craig Stephen Smith has been a victim of such discrimination and victimisation. I urge you to act promptly on the matters which I have raised today. I seek leave to table the documents referred to.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will look at the matters raised by the member for Chifley. Clearly, any matter of privilege is a matter of major concern to the House. I would also expect the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to consider the matters raised and report back to me.Personal Explanations2244015:50:0022440Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley may proceed.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—An article in today's Australian entitled `Rort claims embroil ALP frontbencher' suggests that I may be involved in the matters currently being investigated by the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission's Shepherdson inquiry. This article follows on from the slur in the House yesterday by the Minister for Community Services, the member for Richmond, that I was `cooking the books and getting more people on the electoral roll'. I totally reject the minister's unsubstantiated allegation and slur. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no evidence or allegation to the Shepherdson inquiry of improper conduct on my part. Today's Australian article suggests that I may be forced to give evidence to both the Shepherdson inquiry and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I have not been approached to give evidence before the Shepherdson inquiry or the committee of any other relevant state or Commonwealth authority. If I am so approached, I will happily provide whatever information is required, because I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide in these matters. Also in question time today, the Minister for Employment Services said that I was the state secretary or campaign director of the ALP during the period the Shepherdson inquiry is looking into. The terms of reference of that inquiry do not include the period when I was state secretary or campaign director of the Queensland ALP.Questions to the Speaker224402244015:52:0022440Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question about process, and I refer particularly to standing order 75. On two occasions today, members raised with you language which they found personally offensive. In both cases, you indicated that you had not heard the expressions. In the past, when a person found language offensive, you have asked the person who uttered it to withdraw it, partly as a courtesy and partly because you had not heard it and therefore could not adjudicate. In both cases today, you converted the issue to `unparliamentary' rather than `offensive' language. I am curious about this because the word `unparliamentary' does not appear in standing orders 75, 77 or 78. The incident seemed disorderly and offensive, but now the operative word is `unparliamentary'. I know that the judgment of that is difficult if you have not heard it, but in the past you took the view that, if a person was offended, it was appropriate for it to be withdrawn. Today that was not the case, so could you clarify the situation? 22441SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will seek to clarify the matter. Clearly, unparliamentary terms are out of order, and, as the member for Newcastle has indicated, anyone has the right to indicate that they have been offended by the use of a particular term. No-one in the House would want to be in a situation where people were alleging that a term was offensive when in fact it was a relatively flippant term. I sought clarification from the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, if my memory serves me well. He indicated the term he had used. As I said, I did not consider it appropriate. I did not require him to withdraw it—once again I am going by memory, and I will check the Hansard—there being, regrettably, another inappropriate and potentially offensive term used by someone else. I simply felt that the procedure and the dignity of the House were not being assisted by the whole procedure and that there had been fault on both sides. If members feel that the terms used are offensive and ought to be withdrawn, then on the assumption that the accusation is made because someone is genuinely offended I will of course enforce standing order 75.Personal Explanations2244115:54:0022441Ms KERNOT,MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Dickson claim to have been misrepresented?XW4Ms KERNOT,MPMs KERNOT—I do, yet again.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson may proceed.XW4Ms KERNOT,MPMs KERNOT—In question time today, the Minister for Employment Services misrepresented me when he said that I had attacked Job Network providers for ripping people off and profiteering. What in fact I have said in press releases and in speeches in this place is that there is no independent, transparent monitoring of Job Network which allows questions about the allocation of funding for training to be answered accountably. I drew a distinction between the government's design of the system and the work of the providers.Questions to the Speaker224412244115:55:0022441Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Mr Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to ask you, on the matter of imputation, inferences in answers and standing order 144, to consider the question of what protection is afforded to members when their personal explanations are ignored and incorrect allegations on the same matter are repeated regularly by the same person in question time?22441SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—If the member for Dickson is frankly seeking to have the standing orders amended, which is not clearly in the power of the chair, I think I have interpreted the standing orders more literally than some of my predecessors in indicating, on an occasion within the last month or so, that since a member of the opposition had stated that the allegation could not be substantiated and that it was something that they had not done it ought not to be pursued. I would stand by that, and I think that that is a matter of common courtesy. I must, however, point out to the House—and this is a matter I have discussed with the Manager of Opposition Business—that everyone in the House has the right to raise issues that they believe are of concern. While the chair will endeavour on all occasions to maintain, as we frequently say, the dignity of the House, the chair cannot stop other members from making allegations if they genuinely believe them to have occurred. This is a bind for all occupiers of the chair. I have endeavoured to be as literal in my interpretation of the standing orders as I can, and my interpretation has been more literal than those of some of my predecessors.Privilege2244215:56:0022442Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I wish to raise a matter of privilege. The matter concerns the reversal today by government members of a decision made last week by the JCPAA to establish a full public inquiry into IT outsourcing. Given that the government last night announced a review of IT outsourcing, the circumstances suggest that the deliberations of the committee may have been conveyed, by whatever means, to the government. Today at a meeting, government members voted to replace the inquiry with a roundtable hearing early next year. I raise with you as a matter of privilege the apparent, unauthorised disclosure.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will, of course, deal with the matter raised by the member for Kingston, as I indicated I would deal with the matter raised by the member for Chifley. I will look at the evidence the member for Kingston has, but the custom in the House has been for the committee to look at the evidence and then report initially to the Speaker's office, to the Speaker and then to the House.Personal Explanations2244215:57:0022442Mr ALLAN MORRIS,MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Newcastle claim to have been misrepresented?FI4Mr ALLAN MORRIS,MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.FI4Mr ALLAN MORRIS,MPMr ALLAN MORRIS—This afternoon in question time the Minister for Employment Services referred to a survey on Job Network which I distributed in my electorate. In his comments, he alluded to rorting and to electoral fraud of some kind or other and he associated that with the survey. The inferences and imputations that he made were absolutely incorrect and were insulting, not just to me but to the whole of the Newcastle community, to Job Network providers and to their consumers.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Manager of Opposition Business! Member for Dickson! You are not really facilitating the general standard of the House at this point in time.Documents2244222442Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Mr Speaker, as you know, one of my many onerous chores is to table papers!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Lalor! The Leader of the House has done nothing more than engage in a good-natured exchange, which once again has been misrepresented.WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—I may well have been misrepresented, but I was not going to seek leave to make a personal explanation! Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Department of Finance and Administration: Service charters in the Australian Public ServiceReport for 1999-2000.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance224422244210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's failure to prudently manage the Commonwealth's finances.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—16:00:0022442Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Earlier this year, the Minister for Finance and Administration received an award. Unfortunately, not many members of the House would be aware of this award because the government and the minister chose not to publicise the fact that he had received it. It was not, as you might expect, something like the `euro money award for finance minister of the year' or anything of that nature. The award he received was the wooden spoon for privatisers. He is the worst privatiser and the most generous with taxpayers' money in the history of Australia. The award was given in a book entitled Privatisation: Sell Off or Sell Out? by Professor Bob Walker and Betty Walker, which was published only a couple of months ago. The minister has been deemed to be the biggest waster of taxpayers' money in Australia's history. And he did not win only the gold medal for privatised wastage; he also got second place for the sale of the State Bank of New South Wales. So Telstra 1 and the splashing of vast amounts of public money as a result of underpricing the first tranche of Telstra got him the gold medal, and he got the silver medal for the privatisation of the State Bank of New South Wales. The other contenders in the field were way behind. On recent evidence, it would appear that the minister is not just a one-trick pony. He is not somebody who is good at just one event, good at stuffing up one particular aspect of his portfolio. He is actually a multitalented person who has managed to achieve a variety of disasters in his portfolio. I will turn firstly to the Telstra 1 sale and precisely what the Auditor-General found the minister had achieved in the process of the sale of the first third of Telstra. The sale costs were $65 million over budget—$275 million was spent when the actual budget for the sale was $210 million. The fee for the sale to the global coordinators was negotiated after they had been chosen—in other words, when they were in a position of strength to negotiate, not when the government was in a position of strength. The success fee benchmarks that were set, over which their incentive payments were provided, were below those originally provided in the scoping study and below those originally recommended by the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing. As a result, $5 million to $10 million went west. Half a million dollars in success fees was given to the global coordinators for giving away shares, and $26,000 was provided in success fees for shares that were not sold. So around half a million dollars was given for doing nothing. Five million dollars was spent on underwriting the sale of shares when no underwriting was required. Seven hundred thousand dollars was lost as a result of the absence of foreign exchange hedging that would have been appropriate and, of course, most importantly, the price at which the shares were sold was massively underweight, massively undervalued. The share price went up within less than a year by $12 billion—so it was almost double—and it was noted by the Auditor-General that, in this time, the price of Telstra shares went up by 160 times the average price on the All Ordinaries index of the Australian Stock Exchange.The Auditor-General has also been on the minister's case more recently. The minister must hate the Auditor-General because he keeps catching him out in incompetence and mismanagement. More recently, the Auditor-General has found massive losses on the part of the government, as supervised by the minister for finance, on foreign exchange and transactions associated with international contracts, where there has been a complete absence of foreign exchange risk management. The minister has presided over billions of dollars of losses, particularly in the Defence portfolio. For example, Defence had a contract to buy 14 helicopters. By the time it came to delivery they found that, as a result of the deterioration of the value of the Australian dollar against the US dollar, they could afford to buy only 11. The minister's own department was found by the Auditor-General to have substantially mismanaged its own foreign exchange risk with respect to purchases of properties overseas, to the point where the Auditor-General found that `its inconsistent approach to foreign exchange risk in its overseas property developments has meant that the Commonwealth has been exposed to significant foreign exchange risk in this area' In other words, the minister's own department was not up to scratch, let alone his supervision of other departments. The Auditor-General found that there was `widespread disregard of risk management principles' in this area and that there were no proper procedures in place in order to ensure that there was appropriate management of exchange rate risk.The minister has responded to this by saying that these principles in place are the same as those that the former Labor government had in place. But that is not true. The approach the government has taken since 1997 has been one of radical decentralisation of responsibility, under the provisions of the Financial Management and Accountability Act, which was introduced in 1997. As a result of this change, the degree of supervision by the Department of Finance and Administration of other departments engaged in foreign exchange related transactions has substantially diminished. In effect, the department under this minister has gone to sleep. It has decided that it no longer needs to supervise the activities of departments such as the Department of Defence when they are engaged in major contracts with foreign suppliers. As a result, we have seen very large sums of money lost to the Commonwealth. The minister himself admitted in answer to a question a couple of months ago that the government would have to have another look at this model because, clearly, it was not up to scratch. It is also rather disturbing to note that, in spite of the minister's statement in this regard, in the annual report of the Department of Defence tabled in the parliament last week it would appear that the Department of Defence is totally unrepentant. It had the gall to state that the Auditor-General had misrepresented the department's position. No evidence or substantive arguments were provided as to why. It was put that the Auditor-General had misrepresented the department's position and it simply restated the established arrangement that these contracts were done on the basis that there would be no gain or loss to the Department of Defence and that it would be covered by the government, by the department of finance. In other words, the Department of Defence can simply go out there and undertake contracts on the basis that, if there is a foreign exchange rate gain, it will simply hand that over to consolidated revenue. If there is a loss, somebody else will pick up the tab—that is, the taxpayer. That is the sort of thing you get when the minister is asleep, when the department is asleep and when there is no supervision. That is the sort of thing you get when you get one of the biggest expenditure departments effectively saying, `The Auditor-General is wrong. He's misrepresenting us. He doesn't know what he's talking about.'More recently we have had the Employment National disaster, where first the minister colluded in a rorted process which was designed to ensure that major providers such as Employment National missed out on—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The chair requires you to withdraw that allegation that the minister colluded in a rorting process.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I withdraw that allegation in order to stop wasting time, but I resent your intervention.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Are you reflecting on the chair? Do you want to continue?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—No, I am not reflecting on the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not believe your intervention is appropriate, but I withdraw the imputation. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Continue.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—The second stage was that the board of Employment National advised the minister that the contracts that it had been awarded—the job matching contracts that it was successfully awarded—were not sufficient to enable it to continue to operate economically and that it therefore should not accept those contracts. They were loss-making propositions based on the outcome of the tender. The minister did not like this advice, so he decided to reject the advice and sack the board, and he put in his own stooges to ensure that they would accept the position that he wanted, which was to accept those contracts. He also instructed them to give up their existing Job Network 1 contracts for intensive assistance, which he said concluded on 28 February this year anyway—which is, strictly speaking, not true. The full flow-on of contracts and activities entered into up to 28 February this year would have continued on for some considerable time after 28 February. That related only to clients who came on board up to 28 February for whom assistance would continue for some considerable time.As a result of the minister's brilliant interventions in all of this, the $72 million profit that was recorded by Employment National for the 1998-99 financial year has turned into a $92 million loss for this financial year—all due to his blundering intervention. He has issued an open-ended letter of comfort to Employment National saying that the taxpayer will pick up any losses—`You just keep going, thank you very much'—and it was all due to a deliberate strategy of getting rid of the independent board and imposing uneconomic, uncommercial decisions on it, and it has done it absolutely brilliantly. Interspersed with these decisions and activities, we have seen his and his department's role in the infamous Reith telecard scandal, where it took five years before anybody was aware of the fact that the card had been misused and that it was in the wrong hands. The matter was raised in July 1998 by Telstra and a query was raised about the use to which the card was being put. Nobody took any action, nobody determined that it was not being used by people who were entitled to use it, and nobody checked with the minister as to whether or not his card was being used appropriately. Then when obvious fraud was apparent, in August and September of 1999, he set up a departmental committee to have a look at what was going on, and it was eight months before the Federal Police were called in to investigate what was clearly a fraud on the face of it back in September 1999. His own department had recommended that the Federal Police be called in at that time. He did so ultimately, in breach of his own guidelines that had been adopted by a predecessor junior minister, Senator Minchin, with respect to dealing with these matters. The guidelines said that the secretary of the department would deal with the matter and refer it to the Federal Police. Of course that did not happen; that was subsequently done as a result of a conversation with the Prime Minister. So there were no checking procedures and no action was taken when they were first advised of the problems. The response to apparent evidence of fraud was simply to sit on the issue and let a departmental committee look at it rather than referring it to the Federal Police, and they did not even follow their own guidelines.He has also been a great performer in dealing with budget honesty and information in the budget. The 2000 budget is built on the assumption that Telstra is going to be sold. Not content with a $2.6 billion spectrum sale—which is clearly both inappropriately incorporated within the effective surplus and now clearly under some doubt—and a $1.6 billion loan to the states for GST purposes, we now have the fiction in the budget that there will be a substantial amount, which he refuses to disclose even though the equivalent amount was disclosed in the 1998 budget, which is as a result of all of Telstra being sold and therefore is a substantial reduction in public debt interest. It is very obvious that it is in there when you compare the underlying cash surplus with the headline cash surplus, because that shows a massive asset sale program which can only be about Telstra. The figure is in there, but it is used to bolster a phoney surplus. We know it is in the budget, we know that Telstra will not be sold, because it will not get through the Senate, and we know that, as a result, the minister is presiding over a meaningless surplus projection.The final acknowledgment of the minister's incompetence arrived yesterday, under cover of the Melbourne Cup—which was very convenient for the minister because he was able to put out a press release on a matter that was very embarrassing for him and pretend that nothing was happening and that it was all quite routine. The Auditor-General found, with respect to the information technology outsourcing program, that the first 40 per cent of the program produced $70 million of savings—a one billion dollar savings program, according to the minister, and 40 per cent of it has produced a mere $70 million. He found that $17 million was spent on a US consultant where there was no tender process for the position initially, no contract was put initially, and all of these things were done retrospectively. The program was two years behind schedule, the cost of the program's administration was three times the original budget of $13 million, and only 30 per cent of the work under the program had gone to small or medium Australian enterprises. Now the minister simply says, `Everything is fine, but we were always going to have a review.' That strikes me as being rather strange because as part of this review work is being put aside on groups 9 and 10 and the defence department IT outsourcing. I find it a bit hard to understand how they would have projected that as well. Clearly the minister is panicking; he is realising that public pressure on these issues is starting to rise, particularly from within the information technology sector. We now have a situation where this review will identify and assess implementation risks to be managed when transitioning from in-house IT operations to an outsourced environment managed by an external service provider. We might well ask why this question was not asked at the outset. It appears we have gone through half the program and finally they have decided they need a review to look at the risks of implementing these programs of changing from in-house provision to outsourced provision. Thankfully, the minister has put some of these contracts on hold, and therefore some of the madness that is starting to emerge in the IT outsourcing area is being at least put aside—some of the madness, for example, of asking the CSIRO to outsource the information technology provision that is integral to the delivery of its scientific work. Even where the minister is engaged in delivering a supposedly grand savings program that will produce enormous benefits for the taxpayers, he has managed to muck it up rather chronically. The minister's response to all of these claims will be quite simple. He will announce that they have all been brilliant successes, he will then claim that they are all Labor's fault, and he will then allege that some sort of thing happened under the Labor government that is broadly similar to what we are alleging against him. The minister is seen in some quarters as a nice bloke—the sort of person whom it would be nice to have as your neighbour—he would mow your lawn while you were on holiday, he would feed the budgie and whatever. But I do not think you would give him power of attorney. I do not think you would let him manage your share portfolio or anything like that. When you got home from holiday, you would probably find that the lawn was mowed and the budgie was fat but you would also find that you were bankrupt if he had been in charge of your finances. He is a very good illustration of why, however decent somebody might be in some people's eyes, you do not necessarily put them in charge of the money. This minister is incompetent. He should be removed. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the minister, I would like to comment briefly on the member for Melbourne's rejection of the chair's intervention. I know that he would not normally ever reflect on the chair, but just for his information I wish to point out that, according to the Macquarie Dictionary, `collusion' is `a secret agreement for a fraudulent purpose; a conspiracy'. I advise him and all members of the House that anybody who makes that sort of allegation will always be interrupted. 16:16:0022446Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10— The matter before the chair is `the government's failure to prudently manage the Commonwealth's finances'. There are reams of paper that indicate clearly to the Australian public that under the Howard government over the past 4½ years the government's finances have been brought from a state of chaos, from a state of disrepair, from a rather disastrous situation, into a balanced position. In fact, surpluses have been delivered now for four of the five Howard government budgets. So the matter should rest there. The facts speak for themselves. The management of the government's finances by this government, by the coalition government, has been one of the great success stories of any government in terms of economic management over the past several decades. That has brought with it significant benefits to the Australian community. They are apparent in the context of interest rates, in the context of inflation, in the various productivity gains that have occurred and in the standing that the Commonwealth has with the rest of the world, particularly on a comparative OECD basis. So in general terms I think that puts paid very quickly to the assertions made in the matter before the chair that the government has not prudently managed the Commonwealth's finances. The member for Melbourne has engaged for the past 15 minutes in an inaccurate spray of various aspects, attributing many matters to me which certainly do not come near my role or responsibility. I do not walk away from the fact that those assertions have been made. I am happy to answer many of them. But when you are desperate the idea is to assert many things and leave them hanging out there. That is clearly the way in which the member for Melbourne has approached this debate. Starting from events that occurred in New South Wales: when it comes to matters commented on by that very good man for the Labor Party—at one stage operating a think tank paid for by the unions—Professor Bob Walker, I see it as a badge of honour when he seeks to criticise me in any shape or form, because it is consistent with an approach that he took to me over a number of years in my former professional life. I would simply point the honourable member for Melbourne to some events that happened in his own state with regard to the State Bank. Would that Joan Kirner had got a dollar for the State Bank down there instead of a fire sale that required money to be put in and resulted in a debt that the subsequent Kennett government had to address over a number of years because of the management of the State Bank in Victoria. Perhaps I should move a little to the west from there and talk about a couple of other state banks under the stewardship of Labor governments. I am eternally grateful for the fact that the State Bank of New South Wales was not a liability for the people of New South Wales and that it in fact returned a dividend to them when it was sold, when the government decided it ought to get out of banking, just as the Keating and Hawke governments in their time decided that they ought to get out of banking and moved to sell a couple of tranches of the Commonwealth Bank on their way to complete privatisation. They had it right then. I had it right in New South Wales. Unfortunately, the Labor premiers of the southern and western states did not make those decisions when they had a chance, and consequently their citizens are paying for that, We then had a tirade regarding the sale of Telstra 1. I noted with great interest that there was reference by the honourable member for Melbourne to the Auditor-General's comments in respect of the sale price that was achieved on the sale of shares in the first tranche of Telstra. I can only point out again, as I have many times publicly, that the advice taken by the government reflected the fact that several people rated as worldwide experts gave advice on what they considered the value of the shares ought to be at the listing of those shares. The government settled upon a figure in the top quartile of that advice. These were people who did not have an interest. They were not the global coordinators or the lead managers. But their advice was given, and there were many of them. As I say, the price it was ultimately struck at was very much in the upper quartile of the average of those. You could quote whomever you like on that. I simply say that the experts who gave that advice gave it on the state of the market at that time. If those opposite want to start playing what's your loss because of an increase in price, I simply point out that the Labor government sold Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for around $2 and it now trades in the mid-30s. If you want to look at the price that was hit by any particular share, then the markets move and it is simply a fatuous argument to suggest that because of price moves in the market, market moves, you can make an assessment, with the wisdom of hindsight, on what the value should have been. We then had a reference to the foreign exchange. I said on another occasion in this House that the honourable member for Melbourne should be patient on the Auditor-General's report in respect of foreign exchange. If he looked at it appropriately and wanted to give a factual account, an honest account, of that report to the House today or on any other occasion he would note that it related to a number of matters and a number of agencies, spread over many years.As I understand, it started way back in the 1980s and has continued for a long period of time. For the great bulk of that time there was a Labor government. But I will reserve my views on that because it was the government's intention, as I indicated, to examine that report and to have discussions with the Treasurer. Those discussions have taken place and there will be a very factual account given to this parliament in response to the Auditor-General's report. From what I understand, that will be enlightening. I invite the honourable member for Melbourne to keep it in mind and to perhaps make comment when he sees the facts. He is certainly running on what is mere supposition at this point in time. There was reference to my appointing stooges to the board. People were appointed to the board of Employment National when it became abundantly clear, as a result of its failing in the contracts under the competitive tender process—in a program which has delivered significant benefits to unemployed Australians and which continues to do so day in and day out—that the former board did not have a way forward and were no longer right. The view that the honourable member for Melbourne takes is that, when the board did not give me the sort of information I wanted, I simply got rid of them and moved to put stooges on the board. When the tender submitted by Employment National for the Job Network 2 round failed significantly—they received approximately 10 per cent of the work they had in Job Network 1—it was clear that there had to be a restructuring of and a whole new approach taken to Employment National. It required specific skills, and the people who were appointed to the board, and who are still the members of that board, are senior public servants whom I regard as professional, independent and non-political. Those senior public servants, who operate diligently, honestly, with integrity and in a manner which I regard as professional, have been described here as stooges by a person who aspires one day to be the finance minister. YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—You're their boss.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—With your approach to public servants—if you regard them as stooges, as you have labelled a number of them today—all I can do is wish you good luck if you ever get the chance.Then there was again a distortion with respect to the telecard affair. That has been canvassed to death. The full facts are available for anyone who wants to have a look at them. There was again a slant placed on it. Then of course we came to doubts about whether the government is intending to sell spectrum. I can assure you that the government is intending to sell spectrum. That is the intention.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I didn't suggest that.HQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—You made a suggestion that there was a doubt about whether we would proceed or not. Lastly, we come to the allegations of `under the cover of the Melbourne Cup'. Yes, I was working yesterday afternoon. This is a matter that I believe is appropriate and about which I have had discussions with the Prime Minister over some considerable time. In that context—as one should have a review—the choice was to have an internal review of it. I chose, and suggested to the Prime Minister, to have someone come in from outside, a former Auditor-General, someone with skills in this area and someone who has had experience in the context of significant change. 83UCox, David, MPHQ5Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEY—No, the Auditor-General from Victoria—just to assist the honourable member from South Australia. I am looking at that review in the context of the continuous improvement program. The government stands by the program. There was this rather strange argument about what the level of savings is. There has been significant benefit to regional Australia from that program. There has been significant benefit to small and medium IT companies in this countryso much so that one company, IPEC, which bid in one of the early contracts as part of a consortium as one of the small and medium enterprises, was able to grow its business significantly enough to actually become the prime contractor in a subsequent contract. It is a success story for an Australian industry in the growth area of all economies: information technology. But we do not hear the honourable member for Melbourne speak about that. So the program will continue. There was criticism that the program was behind schedule and, as a result, there was a cost blow-out. It is about ensuring that the optimum return is there. Would the honourable member for Melbourne suggest that, when it was believed at the start of the program that we could do it within a particular period of time, we should have stuck to that timing and blown some money as a result—blown some savings—and got less in the way of industry development and less in the way of involvement in small and medium enterprises? They were the suggestions made in the honourable member for Melbourne's contribution to this debate. I say again that the government stands by that program and it will continue with it. It will ensure that there is continuous improvement. Part of that continuous improvement is to have a review—in this case involving someone external. I look forward to receiving that report. I am confident that it will stand by the program and that it will ensure that we can do it even better in the future.If it were left to Labor there would have been no knowledge whatsoever about what information technology was costing the taxpayers of Australia. There was no idea of what outcomes they required. There was no idea of what resources had to be put into it. There was no idea about whether there was any flexibility in the programs that were there. There was very little compatibility in a lot of the systems that were there. We now know the cost, because we have done market testing, and we can tell the Australian people what the cost is and what the savings are that can be achieved with the delivery of effective and efficient services as a result of the contractual obligations that the private sector takes on with respect to that program. There will be a report, and I look forward to the honourable member for Melbourne making some constructive comments, based on fact, at that time. I will conclude in my remaining minutes by talking about the prudent management of Commonwealth finances. This is the government that introduced the Charter of Budget Honesty. This is the government that, on the last occasion, introduced a 178-page mid-year economic and fiscal outlook. The previous government's mid-year economic and fiscal outlook consisted of a press release which had 2½ pages and then a two-page summary of a table. This is the government that has said to the Australian people, to the markets, to anybody who wants to see what accountability and transparency are all about, `We'll tell you what the situation is in the middle of the year, in 178 pages, instead of in a simple statement in the form of a press release.' We know how much store the former Labor government put in the factual information it provided to the Australian people. Just prior to the 1996 election—I think it was in February of that year—the then Labor finance minister and now Leader of the Opposition said to the Australian people, `The simple fact is that we are operating in surplus and we intend to stay that way.' Well, we know what came through a very short time later: by the end of that financial year, a few months later, $10.3 billion of deficit. The facts are now known. Those facts will be judged by the Australian people. It is very clear that for financial management the coalition government have delivered new benchmarks and new standards, and we will continue to do that. One of those was to say that the Australian people should never again before an election be in any doubt as to what the state of the books is. We introduced, as one of the provisions of the Charter of Budget Honesty and the legislation that underpinned that, the requirement for the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of Finance to disclose the full facts about the government's finances prior to an election so that there can be a proper appraisal undertaken by all voters, all taxpayers. What did Labor do? For 12 months they refused to support that legislation. They gave a clear indication of what they regarded as transparency and what they regarded as accountability by opposing that legislation for 12 months. They were scared that it might ultimately come back to haunt them when they got back into government. I stand by the management of finances by this government. The record has been attested to by the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank as third party endorsements, and it is a very good record. (Time expired)16:31:0022450Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I have not had a chance, as has the member for Melbourne, to read all of Bob and Betty Walker's book, but I have read some of it. There is a very interesting comment about the Minister for Finance and Administration when he was Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales: he would avoid answering financial questions by replying, `I know my limitations.' As the member for Melbourne has pointed out in his assessment of the finance minister's performance on a number of privatisations, those limitations have not diminished even if the minister is no longer able to recognise them. The minister's performance in the other major area of his duties—the control and management of government outlays—also demonstrates those limitations. The parliament and the public deserve to be made aware of those limitations. Managing Commonwealth outlays is a very difficult task, because Commonwealth outlays are not a static thing. There is an economic cycle which, try as we might, we can never quite eliminate. Most responsible finance ministers attempt to achieve balance over the course of that cycle and perhaps even strengthen the Commonwealth's balance sheet. That is a hard thing to do because you have a lot of people around you who want to spend money for political reasons, some of it on things that are worth while and some of it on things that are not, and you have a responsibility in that role to make sure that you are funding adequate services in health, education, defence and justice at a level that is appropriate to Australia's standard of living and in a manner that both is sustainable and Australia can afford in the long term.As with the Treasurer, this minister's only defence is that he has presided over some budgets that have produced surpluses. Today he has been questioned about the strength of the budget surplus in the present year because there is severe doubt that the privatisation on which that surplus depends will produce the expected amount of revenue that the minister announced to the press gallery in the budget lockup last year—$2.6 billion. The minister has suggested that it is somehow infra dig for him to make any comment on that, when he was quite happy to tell everybody in the press gallery about it last year. Let us have a look at the minister's performance. He and the Treasurer came into office; they got some advice from Treasury that said that basically Treasury had revised the revenue forecast downwards, as part of the process of managing an economy over the course of the cycle. In this case inflation was lower than we have had in the past—that was a happy fact that this government was able to inherit—and that meant that revenues were growing more slowly than they had in previous cycles and Treasury had a little bit of difficulty in forecasting them. So they inherited the situation where there was less revenue coming in. They hypothesised that there was a certain financial target that had to be met and in their first two budgets they set about meeting that target. They did that with absolutely reckless abandon. They really were not at all concerned about the quality of services that they were delivering to the Australian people. They just wanted to hit that target and they went at it with fairly wanton abandon. After their second budget, they announced that they would achieve the target in the third out year. That third out year is the financial year that we have just completed. Having declared victory, they then started spending. The brakes came off, they began to spend, and they have continued to spend. They had an election so they had to spend for that and they spent up big.Normally after you have had an election and you have won it, that is the time to pause and think about how the economy is going. But not this lot; they just went right on spending. By the time they got to the end of the financial year that we have just completed, they had almost spent everything that they had ever saved. They have spent pretty well all the proceeds of economic growth; and, with the outlays they have made this year to compensate people for the GST and in the form of tax cuts, they have made a further fiscal loosening, which means that they are in fact a bunch of big spenders and not a bunch of big savers. Before the budget the Treasurer was criticised for this by me and other commentators, and his defence was, `Well, look at us; we've cut debt by $50 billion; therefore we must be a prudent government.' Well, the finance minister is equally responsible for the state of that debt and in fact he is more responsible that the Treasurer for the way that they have gone about reducing it. The interesting thing about reductions in debt by this government is that they are more than entirely due to asset sales. There are two types of assets. There are financial assets like Telstra, which is based on securities, and the Commonwealth Bank; and there are non-financial assets like government buildings. This government has had a veritable fire sale of government buildings as part of its process to fill that debt. It has sold off, for example, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade building for a fraction of the price that it cost to build. The organisation that bought it paid the top price that was offered—bought it at a premium—because they realised that, unlike commercial real estate, there would never be a square metre of it that would be empty. They paid a good price for it and they have been absolutely delighted. It earns the Motor Trades Association's super fund a huge benefit.The Treasurer, in his last budget, claimed that debt would fall by the end of this financial year, I think by $47.4 billion over the course of the time that this government has been in office. Unfortunately for him and unfortunately for the Minister for Finance and Administration, he had to sell $50.3 billion of assets to do it. When you are selling assets like government buildings, which cost more to rent in the long run than they do to buy, you are weakening the government's balance sheet. When you are selling off assets like Telstra, and spending $1 billion of the proceeds, you are weakening the government's balance sheet. When you are selling off government assets below their true market value, as was the case with Telstra 1, you are weakening the government's balance sheet; you are making the government's budget less sustainable over the course of the cycle. That is something that this finance minister has never shaped up to. We have tried to look at information technology outsourcing. The Auditor-General has looked at it and he has said that the savings that the finance minister forecast are not there. The finance minister has said, `I don't like that Auditor-General's assessment of my performance; I will find another Auditor-General'—Mr Humphry, a former Auditor-General of Victoria—`and get him to make another assessment.' He is putting off judgment day—but judgment day will surely come for this finance minister. There are pressures building up everywhere in the Commonwealth budget. There was a story in the Financial Review this morning that the security committee of cabinet had met last night and decided that they were going to spend an additional $3.5 billion on defence. In fact, they were looking at a three per cent increase in defence outlays every year for the next 10 years.That is going to be a big burden. We have seen other pressures bearing down on this budget that the government is going to have great difficulty accommodating. This finance minister is going to face those pressures in the upcoming budget. We are waiting to see what the midyear economic and fiscal outlook is going to be like, to see where he is in relation to his budget forecasts. Will he be slightly ahead of his asset sales in reducing debt or will he be slightly behind them? We do not know yet. We look forward to seeing that. What people need to understand is that their budget has been weakened by this finance minister. (Time expired)16:41:0022451Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I must say that I was very surprised when I saw the text of the MPI today. In watching the reports coming in from the United States about the election, it struck me that the Labor Party lecturing the coalition about fiscal prudence is like Bill Clinton giving a lecture on fidelity in marriage. This is not something that we can take seriously. If Bob Brown turned up here and started lecturing on the importance of private enterprise you could be forgiven for sitting there speechless. That is how I feel. When I think back to the last few years in this country, the thing that strikes me is that there has never been a Labor government that has not gone broke. We heard from the Minister for Finance and Administration reference to some of the things that had happened in the southern and western states—names like John Cain, Joan Kirner, John Bannon. Others come back to mind. That State Bank in the member for Kingston's own home state—what a wonderful record! And, at a federal level, think back to the seventies and the profligacy of the Whitlam years. Time passes, and there again in the eighties it starts to happen again, especially when the Leader of the Opposition held the portfolio that my friend Johnnie Fahey holds now. You have the hide to come in here and get stuck into Mr Fahey about his record, which is a good one. Prudent management of the Commonwealth's finances is not simply a matter of transparency, balanced budgets, budget honesty or even avoiding the zealotry of some spending ministers that the member for Kingston referred to. It is also about reducing the size of government. Government in this country has long been too big. That is a very firmly established public opinion. We in Australia do not want our government to be our master; we want it to be our servant. When we get lectured about weakening the government's balance sheet, the phrase that came from the lips of my friend the member for Kingston leaves me speechless. That said, with the Chief Government Whip back in the chamber, I will persevere. Some of the things that Labor governments have done in the past have made the United Nations look fiscally responsible. We do our best on some committees of this chamber to stop this kind of thing happening. Again they try to establish some other fiddly little body somewhere in Europe to administer another stupid treaty and fill its coffers with taxpayers' money, with no accountability. We have to put a stop to that. There is a basic misunderstanding here—a deep philosophical difference between these two sides of the chamber. The money that flows through this parliament is not yours and it is not ours; it is theirs. It is the public's money. When people talk about `public' in terms of money that is administered by ministers of the Crown and so forth, I do not believe there is any public money; I think there is private money and nothing else. When, sadly, members of the public have their incomes plundered—if I can use that verb—by the Australian Taxation Office and some of that money ends up here, we have to make sure that it is well spent. Big government is the father of profligacy and big government is Labor's favourite child. It has given birth to some other problem children: political correctness, secret treaty making, kowtowing to foreign despots and, perhaps the worst of all, sacrificing workers for job-hating green preferences. Nothing makes me angrier than seeing the jobs and livelihoods of the men and women who inhabit what I call the `metal and diesel economy' of this country wiped out by a deal done with the greenies in Canberra. This sort of thing happened time and time again in the eighties under the Hawke and Keating governments, but it will not happen here while we hold these benches.The member for Melbourne is a fine fellow in many ways. He barracks for Essendon—we can put that aside; he plays the piano very well; he represents the part of Melbourne where my father's family grew up, Brunswick. Were my grandfather still alive and voting I cannot really see him manning the booth for Lindsay, although I think he might have been a Labor man. That aside, we have to ask ourselves: have we forgotten in this place what happened in the past? Have we forgotten the Collins class submarine, the sports rorts and the $10 billion deficit that we were left? Oh, but it was a surplus in February 1996, and then the election changed the government and, suddenly, as if a magic wand had been waved, it was red, not black. We remember some of the major robberies of the past such as the l-a-w tax cuts that were stolen from those to whom they were promised, and then we go back along the winding road to the days of the great Colston cover-up. One of the accused in that crime has been sentenced to obscurity in Europe. Gareth has gone. He is somewhere out there running something called the International Crisis Group. He used to be part of the Australian crisis group that was the Labor government. These days, of course, he is issuing predictions about the world. Apparently one of his recent predictions was that Mr Milosevic in Yugoslavia was too strong to move; they would never get rid of Milosevic, he told his clients. A month later, he was gone—outski. That was much the same sort of quality that he brought to bear here in Canberra while he held office. But, of course, the other accused is still here, marauding around like a dangerous bear, hungry to get his claws and his paws on that honey pot of public money. It reminds you of that advertisement that ran during the Reagan years. I think some of the members opposite might remember it. It was the advertisement about the big bear which said, `There's a bear out there; some people think he is tame, some others don't really know; but, if he is there, isn't it best that you're stronger than the bear?' That is the way. I had a friend called Clyde Nelson. He was an American fellow who worked with me in a bank. He was from North Carolina and his father grew blueberries. He told us the story of the day that the bear came out of the woods and started eating his dad's blueberries. We said, `Clyde, what did you do?'—that was the way he spoke—and he said, `My daddy got his shotgun and he filled that bear's hide full of buckshot, and that bear went back into the forest and never ate daddy's blueberries again.' We ought to do that with the marauding bear here in Canberra. We ought to break out the 12-gauge and put a couple of cartridges of buckshot in the breech and fill his hide with buckshot, and back he will go into the forest!To have the Labor Party lecture us about prudence in fiscal management is like George Speight lecturing on gun control. I talked about Bill Clinton lecturing us on fidelity in marriage. We could talk about the AWU lecturing on the importance of integrity in elections, Saddam Hussein talking about world peace or Cheryl Kernot discussing party loyalty, perhaps. The list could go on. We have to remember one thing: in the time of the Labor governments in the eighties a significant number of privatisations took place and a significant amount of funds was raised. Where did the money go? Did it go to pay off debt? No, it did not. There was Qantas, CSL, the Commonwealth Bank, the embassy land in Tokyo—a very perspicacious act to sell that land at the top of the market—but where did the folding stuff go? It really takes a certain kind of genius to manage to spend the proceeds of asset sales on recurrent expenditure. If you are out there in the private sector and you have an income producing asset, you sell it either to buy another income producing asset that is better value or you retire some debt. As I say, there is a basic difference between the parties here. The money that flows through this parliament does not belong to us—either your side or my side. It belongs to those wonderful people out there who elect us, who pay their taxes loyally and who now and then come and have a say about things through their members of parliament. One thing they want above all is to make sure that their money is safe. As long as the Labor Party occupy benches on the opposition side of this place, I think that will remain the case.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The discussion is concluded.Bills22453R102122453Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.22453Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Bills22454R115222454Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 17), after item 58, insert:58A Subsections 53(4) and 53A(8) (at the end of the definition of this Act)Add “, the farm help re-establishment grant scheme and the farm help advice scheme”.(2) Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 18), before item 20, insert:19A Subsection 23(1) (definition of Farm Household Support Act 1992)After “DEP scheme”, insert “, the farm help re-establishment grant scheme and the farm help advice scheme”.(3) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 16 (after line 18), at the end of the Part, add:6A Effect of sections 53 and 53ASubsections 53(4) and 53A(8) of the Farm Household Support Act 1992 are taken, for all purposes, to have effect as if the definition of this Act in each of those subsections had, throughout the period: (a) beginning on 1 December 1997; and (b) ending on the farm help scheme payment commencement day;included a reference to the restart advice scheme and the restart re-establishment grant scheme (within the meaning of the Farm Household Support Act 1992 as in force immediately before the farm help scheme payment commencement day).(4) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 17 (after line 21) at the end of the Part, add:7A Effect of certain definition in Social Security ActSubsection 23(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 is taken, for all purposes, to have effect as if the definition of Farm Household Support Act 1992 in that subsection had, throughout the period: (a) beginning on 1 December 1997; and (b) ending on the farm help scheme payment commencement day;included a reference to the restart advice scheme and the restart re-establishment grant scheme (within the meaning of the Farm Household Support Act 1992 as in force immediately before the farm help scheme payment commencement day).Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.22454Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills22454R113622454Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Parliamentary Zone224542245410000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for minor capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, being a garbage hopper enclosure at West Block.Committees22454224542245416:55:0022454Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fitout of new leased premises for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Belconnen, ACT.The Australian Bureau of Statistics proposes to fit out new leased premises at Belconnen in the Australian Capital Territory. The ABS is Australia's official statistical agency. Its mission is to assist and encourage informed decision making, research and discussion within government and the community. It provides a high-quality, objective and responsive national service. The central office of the Australian Bureau of Statistics has been housed in the Cameron Offices complex at Belconnen in the Australian Capital Territory since completion of the building in the mid-1970s. More than 20 years experience as tenants in the building has revealed inherent limitations in building layouts, and shortcomings in the building fabric, services and amenities. A proposal to improve the short-term situation of the ABS was developed and submitted to the Public Works Committee before the government decided to secure new accommodation for the ABS when selling Belconnen properties in the Commonwealth property estate for redevelopment by the private sector. In December 1997, my colleague the Minister for Finance and Administration announced that the Commonwealth would market test the sale of Benjamin and Cameron offices and the provision of new accommodation for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Department of Finance and Administration made a public call for expressions of interest from potential purchasers and developers interested in purchasing the Benjamin and Cameron offices site and constructing new accommodation for the Australian Bureau of Statistics.The outcome of a lengthy selection process was the acceptance by the Department of Finance and Administration of a development proposal that will include the partial demolition of the Cameron offices and the construction of a new, purpose designed building for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The ABS will be the sole tenant in the new building with an initial lease term of 15 years and options to twice renew the lease for a further two terms of five years. This proposal covers the fitout of the leased premises as offices for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Approximately 35,300 square metres of floor space will be fitted out to commercial office standards and the special operating requirements of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The accommodation will provide the staff of the central office of the ABS with a work environment that is more functionally effective and space efficient. The project developer has provided the ABS with a guaranteed maximum price for the fitout, based on the fitout brief, of $22.8 million.In its report, the committee has recommended that the project proceed subject to the implementation of the recommendations of the committee. The Australian Bureau of Statistics agrees to the recommendations made by the committee and will carry out an independent audit of the project management fees to demonstrate that the Bovis Lend Lease estimate is competitive. Subject to parliamentary approval, this fitout project will be fully integrated with the construction of the new building under the management of the project developer to maximise cost savings and to minimise construction time. Fitout works are scheduled to commence on site in December this year for completion in March 2002. I would like, on behalf of the government, to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills22455R115322455Debate resumed.17:00:0022455Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—When I was interrupted prior to question time on the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000, I was talking about pharmacists. Not only are they responsible for the bulk of the extra work but once the system is up and running pharmacists will take financial responsibility for ensuring that there are no discrepancies between the Medicare number on the prescription and the information held by the Health Insurance Commission. If discrepancies are found, the pharmacist will have to forgo his or her subsidy reimbursement even if he or she has acted in good faith and taken all reasonable care. So now it seems that pharmacists can add HIC fraud squad to their professional CVs.The general public could also find themselves rather inconvenienced by the implementation of this new system. Firstly, the rush with which this system is being introduced will mean that as of 1 January next year, just 2 months away, members of the general public will have to provide the pharmacist with their Medicare number as well as their prescription for verification in order to receive their full PBS benefit. No number, no PBS benefit, and the consumer will either have to pay the full cost of the medicine or go home, get their number and re-present their prescription. Given that this particular change to the way people will receive their prescriptions has had little, if any, publicity, I think there are going to be some very surprised and very angry consumers out there come 1 January. Personally, I would not want to be a pharmacist during the implementation period having to bear the brunt of public anger at this poorly publicised and rushed change. This raises a couple of questions for Dr Wooldridge. Will there be a publicity campaign in the run-up to these changes? If so, what will it cost? Hopefully, it will not cost as much as the one-off GST advertising campaign. And, if there are no plans for a campaign, how are people going to be informed about the change? At the centre of this entire system is the attachment of a person's Medicare number to their prescription. This is also the weakness of the system. The fact that at pharmacy verification level a person does not have to provide their Medicare card but just a copy of their number and expiry date means the system will continue to be open to abuse. As Mr Reith has so recently and publicly discovered, once your number is out there, it is amazing where it can turn up and how it can be used. Under this system, there is nothing to stop a person giving out their Medicare number to others unlawfully, lawfully to allow an agent to collect a prescription, or accidentally.In addressing the issue of doctor shopping, again this new system may make it a little harder to occur, but it certainly is not foolproof. Doctor shopping is a complex issue. In its most base form, people use the system to make money by on-selling their prescription medicines. At a more subtle level, there are people whose doctor shopping behaviour is often an indication of serious social and mental health issues. All this system will do is identify after the fact—how long after will depend on how fast the HIC can process the information—that someone is doctor shopping. What happens then is not outlined in this bill. The only way in which this system could operate to prevent doctor shopping at the level of dispensing is if all pharmacy databases are linked and can share information. In that case, a person presenting several prescriptions to several pharmacies on the same day or within the 21-day statutory limit would be identified immediately. This, however, would mean that the Medicare number is being used as a unique identifier and that that number is being used to track a person and their information.This brings me to my next concern. Maybe this concern is the product of an overly suspicious mind but, to the extent that this bill only provides an improvement, however flawed, on current PBS fraud detection processes, I wonder whether it is just a Trojan horse for the introduction of a unique patient identifier without the required privacy protection. If I am being overly suspicious, I apologise. Perhaps this bill is what it seems: benign. Yes, it does address fraud to an extent, and it may help identify more doctor shoppers, but that may be all it does.I see nothing in this bill that addresses quality use of medicines, an issue that may not create $16 million or 0.55 per cent of last year's PBS in the short term but would save considerably more over the medium to longer term. Quality use of medicines is a major plank of Labor's health care platform. At prescriber level, improving quality will lead to more appropriate prescribing habits based on best practice and evidence. At pharmacy level, it will allow the pharmacist to act as a safety net, ensuring that medications being dispensed will not interact with other medication being taken by the patient, resulting in a decrease in adverse reactions. At a patient level, quality use of medicines means an improvement in health outcomes and quality of life. For the taxpayer, quality use of medicines saves on costs across the health care budget—MBS, PBS and hospital costs. However, for a government with its eye constantly on the bottom line, improving quality is not a priority: its payback is not fast enough. So instead we have this bill with a laudable aim, a nice saving at the end of it and little else.But back to my suspicions. This bill is the first part of a three-part package to introduce online health records. The other two parts of the package are the Better Medication Management System and HealthConnect. The basis for any online system will be the ability to track, monitor and share health information—something that will require a unique identifier. Any integrated system that does enable quality use of medicines is supported by the Labor Party, but—and I emphasise this—not until there is strong legislation in place to protect the privacy of Australians. Adequate privacy protection has to come first, has to be strong and has to have the confidence of the Australian public. This government is on notice. Its attempts to pump up the bottom line as much as possible as fast as possible will not be tolerated if the price is the privacy of the Australian public. Instead of rushing through legislation such as this, the government should be focusing on producing a comprehensive package of legislation with protection of privacy at its centre. And this legislation is being rushed through. As the member for Jagajaga has already pointed out, the government has signalled its intention to introduce six pages of amendments to this bill to deal with an oversight in the original drafting. I have had an opportunity to briefly look at these amendments, which arrived just prior to my coming down to the House earlier today, and they cover a lot of ground. I will study them with interest following this speech. These amendments, however, do not change the fact that the Minister for Health and Aged Care must have the backbone to stand up to Treasury and let it know in no uncertain terms that short-term financial gains at the expense of quality and public trust are just not acceptable.Having made these points, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Labor will be supporting this bill—not for its content or its possible hidden outcomes but for the stated principle behind it: that is, the prevention of PBS abuse. I do urge the minister, however, to try to ensure at the very least that the general public is made aware of these changes so that pharmacists and other health professionals do not end up bearing the brunt of public frustration. It would also, I believe, be appropriate for the minister to address this House and to reassure Australians that this bill is not the Trojan horse it seems to be and that their privacy will be protected no matter what the cost.17:07:0022457McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—The National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 is quite an important bill for the whole health industry. I have had a special interest in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme because of its unique nature and the contribution it has made to the health of Australians. It is interesting that at this very moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, the US election is swinging in a very tight battle and one of the issues there is the availability of pharmaceuticals in the state of Florida.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I am glad you tied it to the bill.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I was fortunate enough to visit America to see one of the primaries in action and certainly the debate about the cost to the elderly of pharmaceuticals was a very big political question in the US.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—You would be interested in that, Stewie.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—Interestingly enough, the member at the table would understand that ironically the outcome of the US election might actually swing on this issue of the two candidates for presidential office and their attitude to Medicare and pharmaceuticals.The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, as members would be aware, has been in action for 50 years and has been built upon and added to. It provides 559 drug substances, generic type drugs, and produces about 1,900 drug products or brands. The key element is that for non-cardholders it costs about $20 for every prescription, but we well know that they are subsidised. More importantly, individual pensioners pay $3.30 and they do have a safety net of $631 for a family if they exceed that amount of money. The cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is $3 billion, with 80 per cent of these costs being covered with the concessional benefit subscription. So what we are really saying is that this quite massive cost to the taxpayer in providing good quality drugs for Australians, especially older Australians, is a system that has worked very well. The key element of this bill is the concern about doctor shopping and the availability of the PBS to people from outside Australia. For visitors whose countries have reciprocal rights with Australia—those coming from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland—that is okay, but those people who come from outside that grouping should be identified and this bill hopes to ensure that eligible Australians can receive the drugs.Because of my interest in the matter and the importance of the local pharmacists in the electorate of Corangamite, I made it my business to talk to my local pharmacist, Mr Neville Preston, who is both a professional friend and a personal friend of mine. He runs a very efficient and effective pharmacy in High Street, Belmont in the heartland of Corangamite, and he has very friendly staff who provide good advice to customers on pharmaceutical problems. I just put on the record the very effective nature of that provider. They are open from 9 a.m. till 9 p.m. and, like most chemists throughout Australia, they provide a professional service. They are very highly regarded by the public for the advice they give, often for free, and for the method in which they dispense drugs on behalf of the government.In my discussion with Mr Preston, I asked him about the bill before the House to get an assessment on the ground of what he thought about it. Basically his assessment of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was that it was a good scheme, that the government paid on time, unlike some previous experiences, that the administration was good and that it was an efficient administration and they paid within 14 days. That is an important aspect of the whole Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It was interesting that, in making some observations about the PBS, he said it was one of the best in the world, that the availability of drugs was good and that the accessibility was good—and that was from an independent organisation. So I think the system in Australia works pretty well.There has been some discussion about the quality and the research required for the drugs and about the factor F scheme, where the government is able to purchase these drugs at a very competitive price and where drug companies may or may not have as much money available for research. I do observe that many of these drug companies have parent companies in the US or in Europe, so the research factor might not be so important.I observe that the shadow minister for health matters, the member for Jagajaga, at least agreed with this legislation. That is a refreshing change, unlike her approach to the private health rebate, to which she will not really commit herself, she and her leader having argued strenuously in this House against that proposal. They will not give a commitment to the Australian people that they will retain it, and certainly even in this place yesterday it was not clear what the opposition's position was. So I am delighted that the shadow minister is supporting the bill before the House, because it is sensible and it does provide a mechanism to ensure that those eligible to receive medication from chemists can provide their Medicare card. The administration of the Medicare card has been raised with me, particularly providing the number to the chemists.Five or six years ago, when the pharmacists were under a certain amount of pressure from the then Labor government, I took it upon myself to visit five or six pharmacists. I stood behind the counter for two or three hours at a time and watched the pharmacists serve patients. What I came to observe then was the very efficient and effective mechanism that the pharmacists, in my electorate at least, used and the way in which they provided service to the patients. They had a patient record for those patients who were regular customers, they identified the drug and they were scrupulous in the way in which that drug was mixed and dispensed to the patient. I commend the pharmacists for this process and for their backup mechanisms, both the computer software and the reporting mechanisms to identify their customers.We have a problem in this particular situation where we get doctor shopping, which other members have alluded to, where individual patients obtain drugs for their recreational or personal use beyond the desirability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Having very much in mind that it costs $3 billion a year, the government need to do everything they can to contain the cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This bill moves in that direction. We are yet to see whether we can stop doctor shopping because of the privacy arrangements. While it would be hard for pharmacies to identify patients who have taken drugs from various pharmacies without a wide net of information, it is the objective of the government to clamp down on doctor shopping, and we hope that the bill will help to prevent that when people can be identified as having undertaken that activity for both personal and commercial reasons. It has come to my attention that some people seem to want to go to pharmacists for personal reasons, to get a stock of drugs, and they use two or three pharmacists for that reason. I think the legislation will help in overcoming that problem. Use of the Medicare card will ensure that we can identify patients, customers or clients and that those records with computer technology can be aligned with the particular prescriptions. I think it is all possible and it can work. While there is some latitude in the administration of the scheme—and Mr Preston tells me that, being a nine to nine operation, there are a number of other people from outside his area who come to his pharmacy—it might be hard to identify people on a regular basis. We do have the problem of privacy provisions which the shadow minister mentioned. We have an interesting debate here in the parliament on whether the provider number, the Medicare number and the prescription should be available to the chemists and the doctors and whether there should be some privacy provisions to ensure that those numbers are not used in the wrong manner. I do have a view that in the modern age the Australian public will be well served if individual patients are identified and that they can be well served in Victoria or Queensland if they have a medical problem and their records are available. I commend the bill for its philosophical content, I commend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for its success in providing high quality drugs to Australians, especially older people, and I commend the special concessional set of arrangements which, on one hand, encourage people to pay a small sum often not related to the true cost of the drug. Mr Deputy Speaker, from time to time you would run across the problem where individual pensioner patients require the best drug which costs $80 to $90 and they are paying a mere $3.60. We do have some anomalies in the system but at least they have to pay a certain amount of money for these very high quality drugs.I think the legislation moves in the right direction to overcome some of these problems by ensuring that Australians with a Medicare card can receive their drugs and by attempting to curtail doctor shopping, to which most members have referred, through pharmacists helping to make sure that there is a containment of the cost of the drugs. The legislation has the support of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the professional pharmacist association. That is helpful to the government and to the opposition. I thank members of the opposition for their support for the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.17:19:0022459Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 proposes a new system to check the eligibility of people obtaining pharmaceuticals under Medicare. The legislation will require the inclusion of Medicare numbers on prescriptions for pharmaceutical benefits. This is needed because currently there is nothing in place to monitor the use of drugs within the community. This is a detailed and complex piece of legislation which reflects the complexity of Medicare eligibility. It is surprising that the government is rushing through the three-stage implementation program in such a short time frame. The government plans to have the new system up and running by 1 July 2001. This is a major change with quite a few steps along the way. I worry that it is going through too quickly—although, as I have already stated, it is something that is needed to get around the fact that drugs are often prescribed by a number of different pharmacists and there is no way of checking that. However, I do feel that we need to ensure that we have a system in place which will be effective and will be implemented without causing too much hardship and too many mistakes simply because it is rushed through. From 1 July next year, it will be mandatory for pharmacists to ensure that each and every prescription has a patient Medicare number on it. So, after 1 July next year, pharmacists will not receive a government payment if the prescription is supplied without a Medicare number or with an incorrect Medicare number. That is putting the onus on the pharmacists. I am quite concerned about this because the government will penalise the pharmacist if there is a mistake—and it may not be his or her mistake. For instance, the general practitioner could have put the wrong Medicare number on the prescription or, alternatively, the person who goes to the doctor may have obtained that card through unlawful means. As I have already said, it is a very unrealistic time frame. I feel that there needs to be a lot more discussion about this and that it should be phased in over a longer period. Whilst I commend the government for looking at this issue and recognising the fact that there is a problem in the community, it should not try to change something in a very hurried way that is not thought through properly. As I have already mentioned, the rationale behind the legislation is to stop the doctor shopping that takes place. I do not think that this legislation will really fix the problem, because people are still able to send an agent along to pick up their prescriptions from the chemist. It is also a worry to me that more than one person's name can be put on a Medicare card. Incorrect conclusions can be drawn from the fact that one Medicare card number may appear time and time again, when it could refer to a number of people. The legislation really is a knee-jerk reaction to a very serious problem that exists in our community.I would be most pleased if the government were to try to address the problem at its roots rather than just come in and introduce legislation of this nature, but it is a step in the right direction. On this side of the House, we would favour much more a unique patient-identifying number—something that related to a person. At the moment, as I mentioned, a number of people's names can be on a Medicare card, which is a problem. I understand that a paper currently being prepared by the Evatt Foundation is looking at this issue and fully appraising the situation. There will be community consultation, and all parties and interest groups should be involved. I do not think that there has been enough consultation or that all interest parties have been involved. I also think that there is still some reluctance to become involved amongst people that will be affected by this legislation.We have just finished debating the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 in this House. A number of members emphasised the need to legislate to ensure that the privacy of Australians is respected. A number of flaws were identified in that legislation which signal the reluctance of this government to ensure that the privacy of Australians is respected. Unfortunately, the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 also raises concerns about privacy and about the government's commitment to ensuring that the privacy of patients issued with prescriptions is respected. The legislation makes it a mandatory requirement that the Medicare number be on all prescriptions. Medicare numbers will therefore become a unique patient-identifier—and that is a problem. That is a problem because it relates to a number of people, not just one person, and will allow a large amount of data to be collected about the people whose names appear on that Medicare card. Doctors and pharmacists are able to keep records of those Medicare numbers. I know that very few, if any, doctors and pharmacists would abuse the privilege of having that information about their patients and customers, but the possibility exists. That issue needs to be looked at in advance.There is also the possibility that the scheme will be expanded. If it is expanded, we need to know the direction that it is going and the safeguards that need to be in place. It needs to be really well thought through before we go down that track. What will the Health Insurance Commission do with the data it collects? It is obviously there to stop doctor-hopping, overprescribing and the misuse of medication. But who will have access to that information, and for what purpose will the information that is collected be used? I really feel that that needs to be spelt out in more detail. I know that this is part of the government's Better Medication Management strategy, but there need to be assurances that patient privacy will be paramount. The government foreshadowed further legislation containing privacy measures, but that is not good enough. It is a very piecemeal approach to privacy. The privacy legislation that I mentioned previously also fails to deal adequately with health privacy. The government has a very poor record in this area, and I feel that it does not respect the privacy needs of individual Australians. I have serious concerns about the government's commitment to Medicare. At least this legislation shows some commitment to it, even if it is only to monitor medication usage. The government mouths its support for Medicare time and time again in this place. The Minister for Health and Aged Care constantly assures the House that the government is committed to the preservation of Medicare. My question to the minister and the government is: if he and the government are so committed to Medicare, why don't they do more to ensure that doctors bulk-bill? Bulk-billing is a key component of Medicare. It is the one thing that ensures that all Australians can access medical treatment when they need it. But the minister and this government do nothing to ensure that doctors bulk-bill or even to encourage doctors to bulk-bill. Recently I raised in this House the fact that a number of doctors in the Shortland electorate had stopped bulk-billing. I was so concerned about the matter that I called a public meeting in Swansea, where, on 1 September, the two major medical practices stopped bulk-billing. Swansea is an area with a lot of older people, and this has caused them enormous hardship. There is no real alternative; the only practice that offers bulk-billing now is a part-time practice that operates for only 12 hours a week. Out of that public meeting on 8 September a community committee was formed, and that committee has been fighting to have bulk-billing reintroduced in the area—together with the efforts that I have made towards this.The cessation of the practice of bulk-billing is not limited to Swansea. It is happening throughout the electorate that I represent—in Lake Munmorah and in Belmont. In Toukley there is only one doctor who bulk-bills. The campaign supporting bulk-billing has received widespread support throughout the community. Why? Because bulk-billing is the single most important factor in making health care affordable and available to all Australians who need it. No Australian should have to choose between seeing his or her local doctor and eating. The interesting aspect of bulk-billing is that, while the general practitioners in Swansea have stopped bulk-billing, most doctors on the North Shore of Sydney still bulk-bill. It hardly seems fair when you look at the demographics of the area and the fact that there are a lot of people who rely on being able to access a doctor free of charge in Swansea.You might ask what the government's response was to the fact that doctors in my electorate have stopped bulk-billing. You would think it would have been one of outrage, or at the very least an offer to mediate or to explore the situation. But, no, this is the response I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator the Hon. Grant Tambling. He was sympathetic and apologised for the delay in responding to my correspondence. He said that the government `strongly supports bulk-billing' but that it is the individual doctor who decides whether or not to use this facility. I believe that if you strongly support bulk-billing you should get in there and encourage doctors to bulk-bill. The parliamentary secretary went on to say that he appreciated that some people may have problems making up-front payments to doctors. He also said that some doctors may allow the accounts to be sent to Medicare by their patients but that, if not, the patient should negotiate with the doctor to see if he would allow them a special payment system. This is just not good enough. Health care is one of the basic rights of every person in Australia. People should be able to see a medical practitioner if they need to. I call on the government to make a real commitment to Medicare—a commitment that will ensure that the pensioners of Swansea and other areas in the Shortland electorate and throughout Australia have access to bulk-billing and have the same access to bulk-billing as the constituents of the minister for health and the Prime Minister. Not only, under this minister, has the practice of bulk-billing stopped within my electorate but the Medicare office at Belmont, a central location within the Shortland electorate and an area that the pensioners of Swansea could have access to, has been closed. It was a Medicare office that processed a large number of claims. Now these pensioners are forced to travel for an hour by bus to Charlestown to claim their money. It may seem that the distance of 20 kilometres each way to the nearest Medicare office is not great, but if you are a pensioner with mobility problems and can only get there by bus it is very inconvenient. The Charlestown Medicare office is among the top 10 offices in New South Wales in relation to claims. I implore the minister to revisit this issue and look at reopening that office, as well as implementing some strategy to encourage doctors in regional areas, such as the area that I represent, to bulk-bill their patients. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as somebody who comes from a regional area, you know that it is not good enough to have one rule for the city and places like the North Shore of Sydney, and one rule for the regional areas that we represent. We have health problems, just as people on the North Shore of Sydney do.The legislation we are considering today seeks to address a few very important issues, including the issue of the management of medicine and the prescribing and supply of medicine within the community. It is an attempt to stop abuse within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme but, unfortunately, it is poorly conceived legislation. It has problems associated with its practical implementation and operation, and it fails to address the privacy issues that this type of scheme raises—issues that this government has failed to address and that will plague the operation of the scheme. It is a scheme that we need in place to monitor medication usage, to deal with the abuse that takes place in the community and to deal with some of the other problems that exist.If the government does not address this very serious issue, the operation of the scheme will be plagued by problems. I call on the government to revisit the legislation to address the issues that I have raised and to make a real commitment to Medicare, the kind of commitment that will return bulk-billing to Swansea, to other areas in the Shortland electorate and to the electorate of Page, your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like a commitment to reopen the Medicare office at Belmont and increased funding for public hospitals throughout Australia.17:37:0022462Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very pleased that the member for Shortland finally did come to the bill that we are here to speak about, the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000. It was commendable that she spoke about Medicare, but she spoke very little about the bill that we are here to address. The government is very committed to Medicare and to bulk-billing, and that is why we have increased the funding for bulk-billing and opened a number of agencies around Australia. But I would like to speak to the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000. The pharmaceutical scheme has been in Australia for some 50 years, with the aim of providing the Australian community with a range of medicines that are reliable, cost effective and affordable. The system works by subsidising a broad range of approved pharmaceuticals. By February 1999 this covered 559 drug substances—generic drugs—available in 1,354 forms and strengths and marketed as 1,992 different drug brands or products. In 1998-99 the PBS dealt with 129 million prescriptions, at a cost to the government of $2.8 billion. In the year to 30 June 2000, expenditure on the PBS grew by 14 per cent. The purpose of this bill is to build on the current objectives of part VII of the National Health Act of 1953—to assist patients to receive high quality health care through quality use of medicines, to subsidise the cost of prescribed pharmaceuticals and to provide appropriate accountability and expenditure of public funds. Broadly speaking, it requires the inclusion of Medicare numbers on prescriptions for pharmaceutical benefits, and that will ensure that those persons under part VII of the National Health Act will receive those prescriptions. The bill is motivated by discrepancies identified by the Auditor-General in his report, The Australian National Audit Office Performance Audit, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Department of Health and Family Services. The report focused on accountability of the PBS as well as administration by the Health Insurance Commission. In his correspondence with the HIC, the Auditor-General recommended the inclusion of Medicare numbers in the PBS, in order to improve accountability and overcome deficiencies in payments. The PBS operates only in Australia and is available only to Australian residents and visitors from countries that have a reciprocal health care agreement with Australia. Those countries include New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Under the current PBS, eligible customers fall under one of two categories: general patients or non-cardholders, who pay the first $20.60 for each prescription item; and concessional patients, who hold a health care card—people like pensioners and people with low incomes—who pay $3.30 per prescription item. Overseas visitors from countries without a reciprocal health care agreement are ineligible for the PBS.When a pharmaceutical benefit has been supplied in accordance with the relevant legislation—part VII of the National Health Act 1953—the dispenser becomes entitled to claim a payment from the Commonwealth which is equal to the difference between the Commonwealth price and the patient contribution. However, a proportion of claims is rejected because they do not comply with statutory requirements. The present legislation provides that dispensers may not supply a pharmaceutical benefit unless they are satisfied that the patient is entitled to a benefit according to section 87(3A) of the National Health Act 1953. However, there are difficulties in pharmacists determining the entitlement status of customers. At the moment, pharmacists routinely ask customers if they have a concession card. If the answer is no, they assume that they are eligible as general patients. However, there is no requirement for those not on a concession card to produce identification to validate their access to the PBS subsidised drug scheme.When a concessional benefit is obtained under the PBS, the number of the pensioner card, health care card or Commonwealth seniors health card is recorded and included on the dispenser's claim for payment. Copies of card number files are provided by Centrelink to the Health Insurance Commission. In order to identify the person, the HIC attempts to match the cardholder's name and address details on the Centrelink file to the name and address details on its own enrolment file. In a large number of cases, these details cannot be matched. While the holder of a properly issued card is certain to be eligible for Medicare, the lack of reliable matching to HIC enrolment records means that the benefit histories of individual concessional beneficiaries cannot be reliably assembled. As a consequence of all this, compliance with the rules about the frequency of supply of items cannot be reliably monitored. Non-concessional PBS prescriptions generally do not carry any identifying number for the patient. This lack of an appropriate audit makes it difficult to demonstrate the benefit that has been supplied and the payment that has been made to the dispenser, in accordance with the eligibility requirements of the legislation. Names and addresses supplied on a prescription or concession card are therefore not always the most reliable means to determine a customer's eligibility for the PBS. According to a recent audit by the HIC, there is a significant and increasing degree of insufficient information recorded on prescription forms. The absence of patient detail occurred in 45 per cent of audited prescription forms in 1997-98 and in 72 per cent in 1998-99. In cases where a patient's details do not match HIC enrolment records, the HIC must determine whether the pharmacist is to be reimbursed the subsidised amount, although the pharmacist will not have been in a position to have identified a possible discrepancy in the customer's details. The proposal of this bill to include a Medicare number on prescriptions will provide a more reliable way of identifying unentitled non-residents and will serve as an effective audit trail of those who may engage in activities that are not fitting with the legislation. It is important that we have a reliable system that has integrity. There have been breaches and abuses in the past. Chemist shoppers have existed for some time. There are people out there who breach the PBS by applying for the maximum number of repeat prescriptions within 21 days, and most of these tend to be older customers who feel that they must have all these prescriptions filled, even though they do not use all of them. There have been cases of chemists having returned to them a large number of drugs which were supplied because older people wanted to have the scripts filled `just in case' but never used them. The HIC estimates that in 1998-99 a large number of people were involved in this sort of activity. The inclusion of the Medicare number on prescriptions will give a greater ability to verify patient eligibility. It will assist in improving the identification of patients, and it will enable better management of the PBS. I must commend these particular aspects of this bill. The bill is a good instrument which will make sure that those eligible people will be able to use their Medicare card. The opposition has quoted examples of people not having their Medicare card: indigenous Australians in remote areas, minors living on the streets, patients in emergency circumstances and persons covered by reciprocal health agreements. There are provisions in the bill for the minister to determine alternative arrangements to prove eligibility, such as presentation of a passport.Under sections 135AA and 135AB of the National Health Act, privacy protection is already established, therefore ensuring that Medicare numbers remain private and confidential and are not used for purposes other than to ensure entitlement to pharmaceutical benefits. In a number of committees I have served on—in particular, the inquiry into tax file numbers with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration—I have seen that strict privacy provisions do exist with Medicare numbers already, so the opposition's concerns about the privacy aspects are well taken care of under these provisions. The PBS claims that the data held by the Commonwealth is protected by stringent secrecy provisions under the National Health Act of 1953 and their binding guidelines issued by the Privacy Commissioner.This bill is about protecting public moneys through better identification of people obtaining benefits under the PBS. Improved PBS entitlement monitoring will result in savings of $5.7 million in 2000-01, $18 million in 2001-02 and $20.7 million in 2002-03. The use of PBS grew by 14 per cent in the year to June 2000. Given the rate of growth of the PBS expenditure, there is a strong public interest in ensuring its accountability and integrity. The specific objective of this bill is to remedy the deficiency in the accountability for the PBS by demonstrating that benefits have been supplied only to people who are eligible, without breaching legitimate access, while protecting the privacy of the Medicare number which is being used for that purpose. I therefore urge the House to support this bill.17:47:0022464O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000, which was first introduced on 6 September, aims to amend the National Health Act 1953. It proposes to require the inclusion of Medicare numbers on prescriptions for pharmaceuticals under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Labor have some concerns regarding this bill. We share the AMA's concern about privacy, timing and the financial impact of this bill. This bill will require doctors and other people prescribing pharmaceuticals to put the patient's Medicare number on each prescription. This requirement endeavours to check eligibility for people to obtain pharmaceuticals under the PBS. Benefits under this scheme were first made available to the Australian public in 1948. The scheme provides the community with access to necessary medicines at an affordable price. To access benefits, people must pay the first $20.50 for each prescription item. People who hold a health care card must pay $3.30 per item. Under the scheme there is a safety net to guard against large annual expenses for individuals or families. The scheme allows for a reduction in cost for general consumers when expenditure reaches $631.20 and for cardholders when expenditure reaches $171.60. The proposed changes to this scheme are to be implemented in three stages leading up to July 2001, when the new arrangement will become mandatory. When the changes are fully implemented, the government will not pay the pharmacist unless the patient's Medicare number and expiry date are detailed on the prescription. Not only will the pharmacist be responsible for the collection of this information but, if the number does not match Health Insurance Commission data, they will have to find the customer in order to correct or verify the Medicare number or not get paid by the government.There is provision in the bill to allow pharmacists and doctors to retain Medicare numbers for future use. The bill requires pharmacists to maintain privacy and to ask permission to keep the Medicare number. This move leaves people vulnerable to breaches of privacy—confidential personal information is at risk. Currently there are two major ways in which people obtain pharmaceutical benefits without being entitled to them. Overseas visitors who are not entitled to benefits access subsidised medication through the scheme. Visitors from countries other than those with whom Australia has a reciprocal health care agreement are not entitled to benefits but are generally assumed to be eligible by pharmacists unless there is a reason to think otherwise. There is no requirement for people who are not on any concession card to produce identification to receive medications.The other issue of concern about access with the current regime is doctor shopping. As we are all aware, people go to different doctors, get prescriptions for the same drug and get these prescriptions filled at various pharmacists that sell the drugs. This practice is of great concern and costs taxpayers a lot of money. It is estimated by the Health Insurance Commission that in 1998-99 around 8½ thousand people engaged in doctor shopping, with an average cost of $21.68 per prescription. The potential cost to the taxpayer could be enormous. Unfortunately, the measures in this bill will not do much to control doctor shopping as the arrangements are still easy to get around. It will not be necessary to have your Medicare card to obtain medication; you will only have to quote the number and the expiry date. Ineligible people will be able to access pharmaceuticals in the same way as they did before this legislation—for example, people could borrow or steal a card or impersonate somebody they know. The issue is: what is the government intending to do with Medicare numbers once the new system is in place? Will it compare data to try to curb doctor shopping? If so, how would it then deal with privacy concerns? Privacy is very important, and there are too many unanswered questions within this legislation. It also forms our most pressing objection to the bill. What the government proposes is to effectively use the Medicare number as the unique patient identifier without first putting in place the critically important privacy regime. It is possible that this step could lead to further expansion of the power to record and store Medicare numbers. Without the appropriate privacy measures this is a dangerous prospect.This bill makes it possible for major breaches of confidentiality to occur, and we all know how personal and private the information is relating to one's medical records. To introduce changes that make this information vulnerable is an absolute breach of the trust that Australians place in the government to protect their civil liberties. While the proposed legislation is a small step down that road, there are examples in other countries where this sort of access to information, no matter what the safeguard, is used in a very negative way. Dr Kerryn Phelps, the federal President of the AMA, gave this example to the Health Online summit in August this year: Consumers ... increasingly understand that access to data on their individual health history, its current status and, with advances in genetic research, its potential status, may provide means to: exploit, stigmatise, discriminate and disadvantage an individual in every single aspect of their lives—employment, finances, insurance, housing, education, access to a range of private and public services and travel. A recent survey showed that more than a third of all Fortune 500 companies check medical records before they hire or promote and 10 per cent did not inform employees of this practice.Over 200 instances of loss of employment, insurance cover or benefits, as a result of access to personal genetic information have been documented in the United States.The bill forms a part of the government's plan called Better Medication Management System. Further legislation has been foreshadowed by the government to implement other aspects of this plan. The government says that the privacy measures will be dealt with at that stage. That is just not good enough. To say that it will deal with such an important consideration at a later date is simply too late. The government, in introducing this bill without adequate consideration for privacy, is already putting people's confidential medical information at risk. The government should ensure the safety of the program before introduction, not just hope for the best.The introduction of this bill and its implications in relation to the Better Medication Management System is of great concern to the Australian Medical Association, and they have detailed their concerns in a position paper in which they say:The fact that under the Act the supplier/dispenser and the prescriber would be authorised to record and hold the Medicare number means that without doubt, the Medicare number would become a part of the Better Medication Management System record, where a patient has consented to the number being recorded and held.The AMA went on to say:Importantly, passage of this Bill would pave the way for the Better Medication Management System to legitimately include the Medicare number in operation of the Better Medication Management System by prescribers and suppliers. That the Bill gives the authority for prescribers to record and hold the numbers ensures that a field could be included to insert the Medicare number. While at this stage it appears that, under the Act, consent will be required to record and hold the Medicare number, consent to participate in the Better Medication Management System would undoubtedly incorporate a general consent to the requirements of the Better Medication Management System which would include consent to record the Medicare number if the field exists. It is unlikely that a separate consent would be established and we have already seen resistance when different levels of consent to specific areas of the Better Medication Management System have been raised.Their report concluded:The fact is that if a person consents to the recording and holding of their Medicare number in relation to a Pharmaceutical Benefits item, that Medicare number will be recorded for each and every prescription Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or not. Should the Better Medication Management System incorporate the Medicare number, for which this legislation would provide the means and authority, the Better Medication Management System also becomes an entitlement monitoring system as well as linked to a vast array of data that is not relevant to that purpose.The timing of the introduction of this bill is unrealistic and ill-prepared. The three-phase introduction by July 2001 is thought by pharmacists' and doctors' groups to be rushed and unrealistic.The first stage will focus on encouraging people to give their Medicare numbers, and pharmacists being authorised, but not required, to collect Medicare numbers. At stage 2, pharmacists will be required to put Medicare numbers on all prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They are authorised to ask for the number and prohibited from supplying the medication unless they are satisfied that the patient is entitled to the medication. The final stage requires that Medicare numbers and expiry dates are detailed on all prescriptions or pharmacists will not be paid for the prescriptions.The second concern in relation to the timetabling of this issue is the lack of preparation and appropriate debate about privacy legislation. As I said earlier, there is much public concern about privacy and medical records. A Roy Morgan survey in July this year found that 66 per cent of consumers would not consider their records safe if maintained and safeguarded by the government. This is an appalling statistic, revealing how little faith the Australian public have in the Howard government's regard for their privacy. We have seen example after example of systems failing to protect people's privacy, and Australians quite rightly do not trust the government to get it right this time. In light of these concerns, one would imagine that the government would go to great lengths to ensure that the privacy legislation in relation to this bill was thorough and well prepared, that extensive debate had occurred and consultation with consumers was far reaching and that expert groups had been fully listened to and their opinions taken into account. Instead, what has been the response from the government on the fundamental issue of privacy? `Oh, we'll worry about that later.' Prue Power, the Director of General Practice of the AMA, talked about some of their issues with regard to the government's approach to privacy in her introductory statement to the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies. She said:To say that there is a lot of work to do in the area of public confidence in relation to privacy and electronic health record systems is clearly an understatement. It is in this context, for example, that we continually question the government's timetable for the Better Medication Management System that has parallel legislation drafting and a consultation phase of just two months.Ms Power went on to say:The fact is that getting highly sensitive issues like privacy right takes time and not only involves the complex areas of consent and access to technological factors, including technical security. There is also another important point here: implementation timetables also have to address the pace of technology take-up in the health sector, particularly at the GP level. GPs, in particular, I believe, are eager to realise the as yet unimaginable benefits of e-health systems. The capacity to share patient care information with other medical practitioners and the benefits to patient health outcomes are eagerly anticipated. A rigorous privacy framework with consent as central and reliable technical standards, including security, can protect the ethical requirements of the profession. ... the AMA's view is that it should not support electronic health information system initiatives which do not place privacy as central to the operation of the system. We are concerned at the piecemeal approach to privacy legislation and the numerous smaller initiatives that are being developed in isolation from one another, particularly in isolation from the larger HealthConnect proposal. Arguments that these initiatives stand alone are simply not true. They will ultimately be an integral component of the broader HealthConnect and in our view must be subject to the same stringent establishment of the essential building blocks, with privacy as a highest priority. I am very sceptical about the so-called cost savings predicted by the government in relation to this bill. Pharmacists will incur extra costs in the collection and recording of Medicare numbers and will also be responsible for chasing customers whose information was incorrectly supplied. Walk into any pharmacy in my electorate of Bass and it is abundantly clear that pharmacists are not people with an abundance of time on their hands. Undoubtedly, pharmacists will have to absorb the cost for these incorrect details, as it is completely impractical to suggest that they will be able to track people down who have supplied their details incorrectly. The predictions that the government has made about the potential cost savings of this bill are based on some very shaky figures. Firstly, the savings are predicted to come through people failing to obtain pharmaceuticals through the entitlement scheme which they are not eligible for. The problem with these estimates is that we are unable to know how much of this ineligible claiming occurs. It is therefore extremely difficult to predict with any measure of accuracy what the savings may be. Secondly, the predictions that were made in the 2000 budget of savings of $18 million did not take into account that pharmacists will need to be reimbursed for the extra time and costs associated with the legislation. This cost is likely to cancel out any savings gained. We are very encouraged by the opportunities that new technologies present for health services in Australia. We want to ensure that Australia is in a position to grab these advantages with both hands when they become available, but not at the expense of people's privacy. By ensuring that the appropriate legislation is in place before technological change is introduced, we can ensure that the Australian public gains maximum benefits from technological advances with no compromise on privacy. The ALP will ensure that data is not used inappropriately and that commercial interests do not interfere with intended health outcomes. Some of the ways that we would encourage the medical profession to embrace new technologies are through the use of tele health, to give doctors and nurses access to higher quality resources or consultations, access to up-to-the-minute information through the use of intranets, and electronic prescriptions to make communication between doctors and pharmacists more efficient and clear. The key to the uptake of the new technology is the appropriate training, and we must ensure that this is readily accessible so that health professionals are able to get maximum benefit for themselves and their patients. We believe that managing health information electronically is crucial to improving the quality and safety of health services. However, this can only be done when a rigorous system of privacy protection is in place. The ALP would intend to instigate a full public inquiry into this issue and, after listening to what Australians have to say, would develop a strong privacy regime built around a unique patient identifier based on the Medicare card. We would ensure that legislation is in place that prevents this information from being used for any other purpose. Full consent from patient and doctor would be required for any access. We strongly support people's right to information about their health care. We recognise that many Australians do not feel that they have the information they need to make informed choices about their health. We acknowledge people's right to be thoroughly informed about their conditions, treatment options and risks, costs of treatment and health record. We believe that if people have access to this kind of information they will participate more fully in the management of their own health. Only by paying close attention to this kind of legislation can we ensure that Australians have the health systems and the levels of privacy that they require and that they deserve. People must have complete trust in their general practitioner. To ensure that people are able to access the health services that they need with confidence, we as legislators must ensure that the systems are in place to protect people's privacy so that that trust is never at risk of being betrayed. We have an obligation to the Australian public to provide high quality, safe and confidential health services.18:01:0022468Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The basic aim of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is to assist patients to receive high quality health care through quality use of medicines, to subsidise the costs of prescribed pharmaceuticals and to provide appropriate accountability for expenditure of public funds. That last part of the sentence about expenditure of public funds leads me to say that the aim of this National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 is, by and large, to ensure that only those persons entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits under the National Health Act actually receive them. I understand the value of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the last 12 months was $3.1 billion, and under this bill there is an estimated saving to the taxpayers of Australia of about $20 million per annum, once it gets up and going. I should declare my interest in this, being a pharmacist myself. I would not be surprised if the savings were actually greater than $20 million per annum.One of the things that strike me in my job as a pharmacist is that, because we have had the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare in place for so long, people in Australia really have no perception of the value of the medication they are getting. It would not be unusual at all for a patient to be on a lipid lowering drug, an ulcer drug and a blood pressure medication, for example, and if they were on a pension they could pay of the order of $10 a month and receive drugs to the value of about $200 a month. Because of the centralised system we have been able to have in Australia because of our small population, compared with the US for example, we have been able to put the squeeze on the drug companies. I think government from both sides of the parliament has done that quite successfully in the past. But the fact that we have been able to do that and the fact that we have had the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in for so long means that people have very little perception of the value of their drugs. This is one of the prime reasons why we have the problems that have necessitated our introduction of legislation like this. Anecdotes indicate that people from overseas often have a greater understanding of the savings or the cheap price of drugs under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme than do Australians themselves. There are several reasons why we need to have this legislation. We have Australian citizens sending overseas, to family or for commercial gain, medicines obtained under the PBS. We have overseas visitors in Australia who are not entitled to receive drugs under the PBS obtaining these drugs. Another reason which is not insignificant is the hoarding that takes place within our own community. Again, I do not think people have a real perception of the value of the drugs that they have. In my previous role it would be not unusual at all, where someone unfortunately has passed away, for the relatives to bring into the pharmacy a garbage bag full of drugs that are out of date. It would be nothing to have $500, $600 or $700 worth of drugs that people have just shoved into their cupboard with no perception of the value and the cost to the taxpayer.There are three stages of implementation of this bill. The first stage allows Medicare numbers to be collected and placed on the prescription. Stage two requires Medicare numbers to be collected by the pharmacy and placed on prescriptions, for the purpose of determining entitlement to the pharmaceutical benefits. This is planned to start from 1 January. Stage three actually prevents payments to pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions for pharmaceutical benefits where the entitlement has not been established properly. On this point I agree with some of the previous speakers, in that I really cannot see that this is going to be achieved by 1 July 2001. Hence I commend the minister for proposing amendments that will give him the ability to put off this date of 1 July.One of the things that the minister or the department and the Pharmacy Guild are talking about at the moment is to provide the pharmacy with an electronic swipe so that they would be able to swipe the Medicare number, to take away the need to write the number on the script. To me, an obvious thing in developing this technology would be for the same thing to be done for the pension card. As it is at the moment, when a person walks into the pharmacy they have to produce their pension card, and it takes some little time to write that number on. If that could also be swiped by the same swipe machine, that would make up for some of the time that is taken with this new demand put on the pharmacist's time. I would implore anyone not to underestimate the time taken to do this. It is not just a simple matter of a swipe card, especially in the early implementation stage. You will find that pharmacists and pharmacy staff will spend probably five minutes a patient explaining why they have to do this. The first reply will be, `But I didn't have to provide a Medicare card last time I was in here.' Staff will say, `That is new legislation.' The response will be, `But the pharmacy down the road doesn't make me do that.' So there is a certain length of time that is involved in implementing this system. Whenever there is a major change, those on the front line spend quite a lot of time implementing, on behalf of the government, these changes.Again, I would commend the minister for having a very constructive dialogue with the Pharmacy Guild. I understand, having spoken to the guild, that the government is very much aware of the guild's position on this. Part of the negotiations with the guild, I understand, have led to the ability of the guild to be involved in the education process of consumers, doctors and pharmacists. That will perhaps take away some of the angst that is caused at the coalface by implementation of rules such as these.The minister, as I said, by instrument, can make alternative arrangements, or the pharmacy can make alternative arrangements in the situation where a person comes into the pharmacy without their Medicare card—for example, indigenous persons who live in remote areas, minors who live on the streets, patients in emergency circumstances, and perhaps persons covered by reciprocal health care agreements. I understand that pharmacies will be issued with a series of `dummy numbers', which will be able to be keyed into the computers to allow the prescriptions to be dispensed. There will be a close monitoring of the use of these dummy numbers, which I think is fair enough. Despite the clear professionalism of the group of people to whom we are referring, as in any group of people there are probably some who will take advantage and not bother to go through the process of educating their patients to bring their Medicare cards in and who will perhaps overuse these numbers. The monitoring of the use of these numbers is quite fair enough. One issue that is slightly disturbing to me is one I noticed in some of the briefing notes. It probably comes back to a bit of a lack of understanding by some of the departmental people in negotiating this with the government and the Pharmacy Guild. There was talk about dispensers facing additional time costs in obtaining Medicare numbers. The briefing notes say: Since dispensing and claiming of payment are handled by pharmacy software, there should be little or no impact on time costs in these areas. I have already addressed this, and I think it needs to be very clear that, despite the claiming of payment being handled by software, there certainly will be an impact on the time taken to do this, especially in the initial stages. Another thing that caused me a little bit of angst was the comment: ... there will be arrangements in place to enable eligible people who cannot provide a Medicare number to access benefits, there will be no adverse health impact for these consumers. The briefing note goes on to say: Consumers will be able to access better help from the HIC in obtaining PBS prescription histories in order to assist them to develop the necessary documentation for accessing the PBS safety net. On the ground, this simply does not happen. The primary person whose role it is and who the patients go to for assistance to develop the necessary documentation for accessing their PBS safety net is the pharmacist. People who are designing the fine bits of this legislation need to sit down and speak with people who are actually working on the ground, so that the true benefits and the true costs are really assessed.Of course, dispensers are restricted by confidentiality. I understand some of the concerns expressed by speakers opposite, but the way I understand it is that there are basically going to be three columns of information. We have the Health Insurance Commission records of visits to the doctor, so they have their Medicare history. They will have, in a completely separate database, access to the figures which will be provided by the pharmacy. And, when and if the time comes, with the patient's consent, there will be medical records which will be obtainable as well. My understanding is that at no stage can the government or the Health Insurance Commission access those three different, completely independent lists of information except in some cases where there is a suspicion of doctor-shopping, when some of the information, I understand, with the permission of the Privacy Commissioner, is able to be used.In short, I think saving $20 million is a good thing, and the government should be commended for that. The department, I understand, is liaising very effectively with the Pharmacy Guild. I have had very good comments back from representatives of the Pharmacy Guild saying that the representatives of the department have been very proactive and very understanding in listening to their concerns. That also is good. The minister has the ability to delay stage 3, which is absolutely essential. I would put my house on it that we will not be ready for this to go by 1 July, but the fact that the minister has had the foresight to put in that amendment is terrific. I have some concerns about whether the department has sufficient knowledge of on-the-ground impacts, but overall the bill is extremely worthy. I am very happy to support it and, as I mentioned earlier, I would not be surprised if the savings to the taxpayer were quite a bit in excess of $20 million, which I believe to be a somewhat conservative figure. 18:13:0022471Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—in reply—I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000. When introducing the bill, I emphasised that the legislation is to help the government ensure that pharmaceutical benefits are being directed to people eligible to receive them. The bill will require the inclusion of Medicare numbers on claim forms for pharmaceutical benefits. The legislation ensures that pharmaceutical benefits system medicines continue to be provided to those who are eligible, while strengthening our capacity to deny access to those who are ineligible. It is estimated that over $20 million a year is spent providing PBS medicines to patients who are not eligible.The new arrangements will be introduced in stages. The first stage will commence with a communication campaign to ensure consumers are made aware of the new arrangements. It will also allow, but does not require, pharmacists and doctors to collect and retain Medicare numbers with consent. During the second stage, from 1 January 2001, consumers will be encouraged to present their Medicare cards as a normal part of having a prescription dispensed. In this phase the pharmacist is required to ask all consumers for their Medicare number. However, if a person does not provide their Medicare number there is no financial consequence for either the consumer or the pharmacist. This is a phase-in period during which the education campaign will continue to assist consumers, pharmacists and doctors. After full implementation, from 1 July 2001 or such later date as is prescribed, there will be no government payment to the pharmacist for prescriptions without a Medicare number unless one of the specified circumstances applies. This will mean that pharmacists will need to be sure of a patient's PBS eligibility before the supply of the medicine.Special numbers have been developed to ensure access for members of particular groups who are eligible for the PBS but may not be able to provide Medicare numbers: for example, some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who do not use Medicare cards to access services. Special numbers would also be used to provide subsidised medications in emergencies. The bill also allows the minister to determine circumstances where the pharmacist will be paid for the legitimate supply of pharmaceuticals, even though the Medicare number on the claim does not match the Medicare number on HIC records. This is to ensure that a pharmacist, who in good faith complies in all respects with the legislation, is not financially disadvantaged through a mismatching with HIC records. The National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 extends protection under the National Health Act to cover all aspects of the use of the Medicare number and other identifying data for the purposes of pharmaceutical benefits entitlement monitoring. The Privacy Commission has issued guidelines under section 135AA of the National Health Act for required data and medical claims information and pharmaceutical claims information to be kept separate by the HIC. Adherence to this guideline is well established by the Health Insurance Commission. This bill inserts proposed section 135AA(11) into the act in such a way that these Privacy Commissioner guidelines apply to the Medicare numbers that will be stored with other PBS claims data as a consequence of the bill. Further, Medicare numbers obtained under the bill are only able to be used for PBS purposes as set out in proposed section 135AAA(2)(c). In response to concerns raised by the member for Jagajaga, I want to make it clear that, in taking a decision on this bill, one is not taking a decision on other government initiatives that may arise. This does not in any way lock Australia into a particular outcome on the use of a universal patient identifier. There is a long way to go on this important issue and the relative merits of other proposals can be debated when the legislation for these proposals is brought forward. On the issue of time frame and the concerns that our community will not be ready, the amendments to this legislation will enable me, as the minister, to delay implementation should it be determined that 1 July 2001 is not appropriate. The bill ensures that PBS medicines continue to be provided to those who are eligible while strengthening our capacity to deny access to those who are ineligible. This bill preserves and strengthens the PBS and the benefits it provides for the Australian community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.22472Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:18:0022472Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—by leave—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move government amendments (1) to (5):(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 84(1)Insert:CTS claim means a claim made to the Health Insurance Commission using the procedures of the Claims Transmission System provided for in section 99AAA of the National Health Act 1953.(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 10 to 16), omit subsection (10), substitute: (10) A reference in this Part to a medicare number, or a special number, ultimately supplied to the Health Insurance Commission in relation to a prescription, is a reference to: (a) if the number is not inserted in a CTS claim relating to that prescription—the number in the form in which it appears on the prescription (or in the case of a communicated prescription, the written version of the prescription), at the time when the prescription is sent to the Health Insurance Commission by an approved supplier with a claim for payment; or (b) if that number is inserted in a CTS claim relating to the prescription—the number so inserted.(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 26) to page 8 (line 23), omit subsections (3), (4) and (5), substitute:Approved supplier's powers if medicare number is provided (3) If a medicare number is provided to the approved supplier as a number applicable to the person following a request under subsection (1), or is included as such a number in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D, the approved supplier may: (a) if the prescription has already been endorsed with a medicare number as such a number, check the number so provided or included against the endorsed number and: (i) confirm that they are the same; or (ii) if they are not the same and the approved supplier considers the number so provided or included more reliable than the endorsed number—alter the endorsed number to the number so provided or included or insert the number so provided or included in the CTS claim relating to the prescription, noting the discrepancy; or (iii) if they are not the same and the approved supplier considers the endorsed number more reliable than the number so provided or included—disregard the number so provided or included and, if making a CTS claim, insert the endorsed number in the CTS claim relating to that prescription; and (b) if the prescription has not already been endorsed with a medicare number as such a number: (i) endorse the prescription with the medicare number so provided or included as a number applicable to the person; or (ii) insert the number so provided or included in the CTS claim relating to that prescription; and (c) if the approved supplier has also been provided with, or has, in the approved supplier's records, the expiry date in relation to the medicare number ultimately supplied to the Health Insurance Commission—confirm that the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit authorised by the prescription is not being sought after the expiry date. Approved supplier's powers in respect of prescription (other than communicated prescription) covering person included in class determined under subsection 86E(1) (4) If: (a) the prescription for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit that is presented to the approved supplier does not contain a medicare number as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates; and (b) despite a request under subsection (1), a medicare number is not provided to the approved supplier as such a number; and (c) a medicare number is not retained in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D as such a number; and (d) the approved supplier is satisfied that the person to whom the prescription relates is included within a class of persons identified by the Minister under subsection 86E(1);the approved supplier may: (e) endorse on the prescription the special number applicable to the person as a member of that class; or (f) insert that number in the CTS claim relating to that prescription.Approved supplier's powers in respect of written version of communicated prescription not containing medicare number (5) If: (a) a prescription for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit is not presented to an approved supplier as described in subsection (1) but is communicated to the approved supplier in circumstances set out in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 89(a); and (b) the approved supplier later receives a written version of the prescription that does not contain a medicare number as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates;the approved supplier may, after the written version of the prescription is received, endorse on the written version, or insert in the CTS claim relating to the prescription: (c) if a medicare number is already retained in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates—that medicare number; or (d) if a medicare number is not so retained as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates—the special number applicable to the person under subsection 86E(1) as a person in respect of whom a prescription has been so communicated.(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 32) to page 12 (line 21), omit subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), substitute:Approved supplier's obligations in relation to medicare number provided (3) If: (a) a medicare number is provided to the approved supplier as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates following a request under subsection (1) or is included as such a number in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D; and (b) the prescription has not already been endorsed with a medicare number as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates;the approved supplier must: (c) endorse the prescription with the medicare number so provided or included; or (d) insert the number so provided or included in the CTS claim relating to the prescription.If medicare number is provided, approved supplier may check prescription endorsed by practitioner (4) If: (a) a medicare number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates is provided to the approved supplier following a request under subsection (2) or is included in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D; and (b) the prescription has already been endorsed with a medicare number as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates;the approved supplier may check the number so provided or included against the endorsed number and: (c) confirm that they are the same; or (d) if they are not the same and the approved supplier considers the number so provided or included more reliable than the endorsed number: (i) alter the endorsed number to the number so provided or included; or (ii) insert the number so provided or included in the CTS claim relating to the prescription, noting the discrepancy; or (e) if they are not the same and the approved supplier considers the endorsed number more reliable than the number so provided or included—disregard the number so provided or included and, if making a CTS claim, insert the endorsed number in the CTS claim relating to that prescription.Approved supplier may check to ensure that supply not being sought after relevant expiry date (5) If the approved supplier has also been provided with, or has in the approved supplier's records, the expiry date in relation to the medicare number ultimately supplied to the Health Insurance Commission, the approved supplier may confirm that the supply of the pharmaceutical benefit authorised by the prescription is not being sought after the expiry date.Requirement in respect of prescription (other than communicated prescription) covering person included in class determined under subsection 86E(1) (6) If: (a) the prescription for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit that is presented to the approved supplierdoes not contain a medicare number as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates; and (b) despite a request under subsection (1), a medicare number is not provided to the approved supplier as such a number; and (c) a medicare number is not retained in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D as such a number; and (d) the approved supplier is satisfied that the person to whom the prescription relates is included within a class of persons identified by the Minister in a determination under subsection 86E(1);the approved supplier must: (e) endorse on the prescription the special number applicable to the person as a member of that class; or (f) insert that special number in the CTS claim relating to the prescription.Requirement in respect of written version of communicated prescription not containing medicare number (7) If: (a) a prescription for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit is not presented to an approved supplier as described in subsection (1) but is communicated to the approved supplier in circumstances set out in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 89(a); and (b) the pharmaceutical benefit is one in respect of the supply of which the approved supplier would, but for the operation of subsection 99(7), be entitled to receive a payment under subsection 99(2) or (4); and (c) the approved supplier later receives a written version of the prescription that does not contain a medicare number as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates;the approved supplier must, after the written version of the prescription is received, endorse on the written version, or insert in the CTS claim relating to the prescription: (d) if a medicare number is already retained in the approved supplier's records in accordance with section 86D as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates—that medicare number; or (e) if a medicare number is not so retained as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates—the special number applicable to the person under subsection 86E(1) as a person in respect of whom a prescription has been so communicated.Note 1: Subsection 99(7) sets out the consequences of a failure ultimately to supply a medicare number or special number to the Health Insurance Commission or, in the case of a medicare number that is so supplied, of a discrepancy with a medicare number held in the records of the Health Insurance Commission.Note 2: If, because a medicare number is not provided and a special number is not applicable, a person pays the full amount to an approved supplier for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit, the person may be entitled to an appropriate refund from the Commonwealth (see subsection 87A(2)).(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 19 (line 1) to page 20 (line 3), omit subsections (7) and (8), substitute: (7) Subject to subsection (8), an approved supplier is not entitled: (a) if the supplier is an approved pharmacist or an approved medical practitioner—despite subsection 99(2); and (b) if the supplier is an approved hospital authority—despite subsection 99(4);to be paid by the Commonwealth for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit to a person on a prescription presented to the approved supplier on or after 1 July 2001 or such later date as is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection unless: (c) there is ultimately supplied to the Health Insurance Commission a medicare number, or a special number, as a number applicable to the person to whom the prescription relates; and (d) if the number so supplied is such a medicare number—that medicare number corresponds with a medicare number that is held in the records of the Health Insurance Commission as a number applicable to that person. (8) The Minister may, by written determination, identify circumstances in which subsection (7) does not prevent an approved supplier being paid by the Commonwealth for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit in respect of a person to whom a prescription relates although a medicare number ultimately supplied to the Health Insurance Commission in relation to the prescription does not correspond with a medicare number that is held in the records of the Health Insurance Commission as a number applicable to that person.When introducing the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 I emphasised that the legislation is to help the government ensure that the pharmaceutical benefits we pay are directed to people eligible to receive them. This is to be achieved by requiring the inclusion of the Medicare number with pharmaceutical benefits claims. There are special provisions to protect eligible people who, for one reason or another, are not able to provide a Medicare number. The administrative processes associated with implementing this bill in terms of collecting and providing the Medicare number fall principally on pharmacists. It is these processes that will be simplified with the proposed amendments. These amendments take advantage of recent proposals to enhance information technology arrangements in pharmacies and are in line with the government's online agenda enabled by the Electronic Transactions Act. The major amendments enable the Health Insurance Commission to accept the Medicare number electronically in the claims transmission system for PBS. Under the initial bill, the pharmacy was required to write the number on the prescription form, even if it was also included in the electronic claim.The amendments also allow the minister to delay the introduction of the final phase if full implementation is not practical; for example, where software development or new technology is not yet in place. The amendments also allow the minister to determine circumstances where pharmacists will be paid for the legitimate supply of pharmaceuticals, even though the Medicare number on the claim form does not match the Medicare number on HIC records. This is to ensure that a pharmacist who in good faith complies with all respects of the legislation is not disadvantaged. These amendments have come out of negotiations with the Pharmacy Guild, and I believe they are worthy of support. In summary, the bill and the subsequent amendments are designed to protect public moneys through the acquiring of confirmation of eligibility before the supply of subsidised prescriptions under the PBS. The bill does not in any way alter any existing arrangements with the PBS. However, it does ensure that medicines continue to be provided to those who are eligible, whilst strengthening our capacity to deny access to those who are not. The bill preserves and strengthens the PBS and the benefits it provides for the Australian community. I commend the amendments to the House. 18:21:0022476Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—As members would be aware, these amendments to the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000 are quite extensive. We only got to see them last night. Given that we support the government's efforts to crack down on any fraud that might exist with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also to limit as far as possible doctor shopping, we support the general intent of the bill. As I said in my earlier remarks today on the bill, we are not convinced that it will necessarily be effective but, that said, it is worth a try. Given the extensive nature of these amendments, we will examine them and reserve our position until they are in the Senate.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.22476Bill (on motion by Dr Wooldridge)—by leave—read a third time.Bills22476R112922476Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments Nos 1 and 2 disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of those amendments.Bills22476R92622476Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills22476R1141BillsR1142BillsR1144BillsR1143BillsR1146BillsBillsBills22476Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.18:25:0022477Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The first point I would like to make about the Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000 and cognate bills is this very simple point: it is about time. The Labor Party has been raising matters to do with problems in international education since the Senate inquiry into the 1998 bill extending the sunset clause of the education services for overseas students legislation—the ESOS Act. Labor's call for a full inquiry into allegations of rorting was not heeded for 12 months and, even then, in August 1999, only a fairly restricted review was initially planned. The minister's media release of 19 August 1999 took a fairly laid-back approach to the issues that we have been raising. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs said: In line with the commitment to constantly monitor the effectiveness of legislation and policy, DETYA is to lead a review to reform elements of the ESOS Act ... I am keen to build on the effectiveness of the regulatory framework.You can't get more laid back than that. Yet by March this year, in flagging the legislation that is now before the House, the minister had a very different attitude. He said:The Howard government has released details of a hardline crackdown on providers of education for overseas students who fall below acceptable quality or collude with students to evade immigration regulations.The minister went on to say that the ESOS Act needed, `significant strengthening'. In the period between the minister's initial announcement of his decision to monitor the effectiveness of legislation and policy and to have his department lead a review and his press release of March, obviously there was a quite dramatic change in the minister's attitude to the legislation. It is my very strong view that this was due largely to the opposition's continued exposure of the rorts and abuses which have been damaging Australia's reputation as an international education provider.I might use this opportunity to place on record my recognition of the fact that Senator Kim Carr and his staff, and other colleagues in the Senate, have invested a great deal of time and effort in dragging the government to the hurdle, in making sure that Australia does have a stronger and adequate level of regulation for our international education providers. In many cases, when Senator Carr raised these issues in the Australian parliament we had either the government ignoring the issues that were being raised or the minister being dismissive of his calls for tighter regulation to protect Australia's good name. Whatever the case, the issues that Senator Carr and my colleagues and I were raising were not enough to get the minister to move any more quickly than he ever seems to move on any legislation concerning education in this parliament.Although his March 2000 media release said that these bills would be introduced in the winter sittings, they did not appear until 30 August—well into the spring sittings—continuing the tardiness with which this government has treated the problems in the education export industry. These problems are serious, as the measures taken by the bills attest. While we believe that improvements can be made to the legislation before the House, Labor is pleased that the government, which is happy to crow about the value to Australia of an education export industry, is finally showing some determination to protect the industry's reputation and Australia's future. Australia's fourth largest export industry—that is, our education export industry—has grown rapidly from a small base in the mid-1980s. In 1988 the total number of overseas students studying at Australian institutions was a little over 21,000. This year the figure is 181,656, an increase of more than 850 per cent. As my colleague the member for Denison and I know, in no small measure that is due to the tenacity of the former federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, the former member for Fremantle, who in many ways was a great visionary in the potential he saw for Australia expanding its education export industry.It is understandable, with that massive growth, that the regulatory framework that Australia has had in some ways has had to be continuously upgraded to ensure that we were adequately managing the rapid growth in the sector. What is less understandable is the Howard government's reluctance to take action, in spite of repeated examples of rorts and abuses in the industry, even to the extent of the Howard government not using the powers already contained in the ESOS Act. For example, the act currently says that if a provider defaults—that is, the course does not start or is not offered to completion—then a refund is payable to students. That is what the current act says. The current act also requires the keeping of a trust account. Intentional or reckless contravention of these provisions is an offence punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment. Nevertheless, no prosecutions have been undertaken under the ESOS Act, even though the last 18 months have seen a procession of provider failures, abuse of trust accounts, student visa rorts and obvious illegal activity. Let me give some examples. Let us start with G-Quest Institute of Advanced Learning. At G-Quest Institute of Advanced Learning, a student reported to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that her college, which was on the Commonwealth register commonly known as CRICOS, did not physically exist. At the address of the college there was an empty building. DETYA tracked down the registered provider but, apart from telling the provider it ought to give that student a refund, did not pursue the matter further until hounded into doing so by the opposition. Let me give a second example. National Colleges of Australia collapsed in mid-1999, leaving 700 students unaccounted for. At last report, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs were still looking for 100 of those students. Many of the students were presumably bogus. They could not have fitted into National Colleges of Australia's modest premises in the Sydney central business district. When it collapsed, the college had destroyed its student records, and its proprietor, sadly, had committed suicide. The third example is the Wesley Institute for Language and Commerce. This institute closed in August 2000, leaving 500 students with only partial refunds. This college was owned by Wesley Mission, which leased out the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, CRICOS, and Registered Training Organisation, RTO, status to some questionable people involved in visa scams. They offered extremely low fees, inadequate premises and a sophisticated system for falsifying attendance records. This leasing-out type of arrangement is not dealt with adequately in these bills, despite the outrageous examples that have been brought to light in recent times. I will have more to say about that later. The New South Wales government is currently investigating 20 colleges, indicating that the sorts of problems the opposition have detailed are not isolated cases but symptomatic of widespread practices. The opposition's campaign over the last two years has identified dishonest providers in the industry, has identified lack of financial integrity in certain sections of the industry and has identified a lack of protection for students against provider collapse. So we do not hesitate in congratulating the government for acting, but we are very critical of the fact that the government has taken so long to act on this important area of public policy.I now turn to some of the details of the bills before the House. The Education Services for Overseas Students Bill establishes a tighter regime that deals with many, although not all, of the problems identified by Labor. The main changes to current arrangements are these. Firstly, there is a national assurance fund to replace individual trust accounts. Secondly, there is a legally enforceable national code of practice covering the registration and monitoring of providers. Thirdly, there is an electronic enrolment tracking system better able to detect breaches of student visa conditions. Fourthly, there is a new offence of being a bogus provider. Fifthly, there are new powers for the Commonwealth to investigate and act on apparent breaches of the act or the national code. The assurance fund will replace the notified trust accounts which were required to be kept by individual providers to protect the course fees paid by students. Bank guarantees or insurance policies were considered acceptable alternatives, although problems have become evident with all of these arrangements under the existing legislation. In the case of the Business Institute of Victoria, for example, when it collapsed in April 1999 there were no trust account funds available to compensate students. On a separate point, the operation of the Business Institute of Victoria in both Melbourne and Vanuatu raises issues about providers who operate across international borders. About 20 students of the Business Institute of Victoria were left stranded in Vanuatu, as were the Australian and other staff who were employed there. Unfortunately, nothing in this package of bills deals with offshore providers, including those providers who operate only on the Internet, whether or not they are based in Australia. These are issues which Labor has been raising and will continue to raise until they are dealt with in an adequate fashion by the government. The trust account of the Australian Business and Technology Institute was empty when the business collapsed in November 1999, providing another example of the inadequacy of the trust account system, at least as administered by this government. Insurance policies also have been proven to be an ineffective way of protecting students' course fees because of delays in payments. Labor supports the establishment of an assurance fund and its operation as described in this legislation.I would now like to move to the issue of the national code of practice. Currently there is a voluntary code of practice for the provision of international education and training which was endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 1994. The proposed new national code is more explicit in the requirements it places on providers, and Labor certainly supports that. We also support the proposed legal sanctions for breaches of the code.We believe, however, that the national code could be improved in three ways, firstly by strengthening the provisions relating to franchising and licensing arrangements for course provision to bodies other than the CRICOS registered entity. Secondly, we think the national code of practice can be improved by widening the disclosure requirements about previous offences by intending providers. In other words, we believe there should be a genuine fit and proper person test of the sort which I understand is currently applied in the Australian travel industry. Thirdly, we think that the code could be improved by having greater specification of the requirements for maintenance of student records by providers. It is not hard to imagine that some providers will seek to meet the obligations imposed in the new legislation by having computer programs which might automatically record a student as being present unless the program is manually overridden. We think there should be greater supervision and greater scrutiny of student attendance than that.Let me place on record before the parliament the fact that Labor welcomes the new powers given to the Commonwealth, both to DETYA and to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. We think these departments should have the power and the authority to enter premises to search, to take photographs, to seize documents and other material and to ask questions subject to the usual safeguards. The power of the states and territories to register institutions as training organisations is a vital factor in the quality assurance task. They have a significant responsibility to ensure that those who seek to go into the education and training business meet the full range of quality criteria both initially and on an ongoing basis. We also believe that the Commonwealth has certain responsibilities in this regard, and we will not allow this federal minister for education to simply pass the buck to his state ministerial colleagues for ensuring that Australia's international reputation in providing high quality education and training to overseas students is upheld and maintained.In terms of the bills, the coalition has come a long way since it sought the inclusion of a sunset clause in the original ESOS legislation in 1991. The details of the bills will be further explored in the consideration in detail discussion and also I can assure the government that the Labor Party will be using the Senate committee hearings to fully explore many of the issues that will be addressed in the House today and the issues that have been addressed in many of the public comments on this particular industry. In the meantime the Labor Party will be supporting the second reading of the bill. However, I now move a second reading amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House: (1) notes:(a) the cultural and economic value to Australia of its $3 billion a year education export industry; (b) the numerous problems in this industry identified by the Opposition, including dishonest providers, lack of financial integrity in certain sections of the industry, and lack of protection for students against provider collapse;(c) that this Bill does not adequately address the identified problems; and (2) condemns the Government for failing to act on these matters for the last two years'.Having moved that, I will make a few comments about some further amendments of which the government advised my office last night. I was very interested in some comments that were made by the National Party member for Riverina in a debate in this House a few nights ago. She said this about some amendments which the opposition circulated during the debate on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000:However, from the outset, I would like to express my most serious objection at the inappropriate tactics of the opposition in producing late amendments and expecting us—that is, the government—to consider them or, indeed, take them seriously. If the opposition were so serious about privacy and about the amendments they are proposing, they would have given us more time to consider them. The fact that adequate care and concern was not paid to this issue by the opposition is so very obvious. Even if the government were mindful to consider some of the proposed amendments, it could not do so in the ridiculously short time provided by the opposition.What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the National Party member for Riverina is upset that the opposition amendments on the privacy legislation were circulated only at a time that did not give her party a chance to consider them at its regular Tuesday morning party meeting, we might draw to the attention of the member for Riverina that this piece of legislation, which is being debated on Wednesday, will have amendments moved to it but that the opposition was advised of those amendments only last night.I do not reflect in any way on the member for Adelaide, who must have a terrible job being the parliamentary secretary to this minister for education. When we contacted the office of the minister for education several days ago and asked whether the government intended to move amendments to the ESOS legislation, we were told that they did not intend to tell the opposition whether there would be any government amendments to this legislation. All I can say to the minister for education is that he should read very carefully or remind himself of Newton's third law of motion: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.The minister for education frequently squibs debates on legislation concerning education: he sends in the member for Adelaide as his parliamentary secretary. In some ways, we do not mind dealing with her: she is a much easier person to deal with on a constructive basis in dealing with education issues. But it is not fair to the member for Adelaide and it is certainly not fair to this parliament that the minister for education treats the parliament in such a shabby manner that, when the opposition ask about government amendments, his office tells us that they have no intention of telling us whether or not they intend to move amendments. If the minister for education wants to play that game, the opposition will be forced to give him minimal notice of amendments that we may be considering in future. That does not help the parliament.In the past, we have given this Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs several warnings that we will take action if he continued to treat the parliament with contempt. So we will give him one last warning. Whether or not he sends in the member for Adelaide to fill his place because he is not prepared to come into the chamber and debate the second reading amendments, because he is not prepared to come into the chamber to debate with the opposition the detailed amendments in the consideration in detail stage, we simply tell him that there will be an equal and opposite reaction to decisions that he and his office take. For that reason, we look forward to the consideration in detail stage. The great tragedy is that in many ways the amendments that we were advised of last night do improve this bill, do make the bill easier for the opposition to support and address some of the concerns that we have been raising. Had the government given us advice and notice about its further amendments to this legislation before our party met last Tuesday, then perhaps we might have been able to ensure that the government was able to have its amendments dealt with in a much more thorough and considered manner. However, the important thing is that Australia's international education export industry earns our country a great deal of money. There are many Australians whose jobs depend on education exports. There are many international students who come to Australia and benefit greatly from being able to study in our country. They also make many friends. As a result of their study in Australia, they take back to their countries a very warm affection for Australia and Australians. That is something whose value longer term is very hard to measure. For all of these reasons, the Labor Party has been raising its concerns about the rorters and the abusers who are active in this industry so that we can work with those who want to chase the cowboys out of this industry.Some of the providers in the industry would have concerns about the fact that the Labor Party has been exposing the rorters. Some of the strongest advocates of tough regulation against and tough penalties for those who rip off students and do not provide proper standards in this industry are themselves the best providers in the industry. I think that is to the great credit of the overwhelming majority of the providers to overseas students. They know that, to protect their good name, they have to make sure that the shonks are chased out. I am sure that the changes that are made in this legislation will go some way towards addressing the concerns that the opposition has been raising for more than two years now. For these reasons, the opposition will not be opposing the legislation and will be supporting the second reading amendment.10000Crosio, Janice (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Is the amendment seconded?8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—I second the amendment.18:48:0022481Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise in support of the Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000. This is an important piece of legislation. I have listened to the concerns of the member for Dobell. It is very interesting that one shadow minister is complaining that there has been a lack of consultation, yet it is only 24 hours since I was in this chamber with another shadow minister who managed to announce amendments that the Labor Party wanted to move to a piece of legislation while the coalition was having their party room meeting—which did not make it possible to consider those amendments before the bill came into the House. Such hypocrisy is not unnoted. If you want a consistent approach, I think we should start to look at some of the antics that were used during the discussion on the privacy bill. Nevertheless, I am very happy to hear that the member for Dobell supports this legislation. Of course, it is an old device, when one actually thinks a piece of legislation is good, to say, `We support it, but we think it has taken quite a while to produce.' I hear what he is saying. It is a good piece of legislation. I also suggest to the shadow minister that, in 13 long years of Labor, lots of overseas students came to Australia without such an effective piece of legislation in order to control the numbers of students, their behaviour and the conditions under which they came here. As he rightly points out, and as the second reading amendment indicates, this is a very important sector of the Australian economy. If we look at the overall value of this industry to the Australian economy, we see it is now worth some $3.018 billion, which is just huge in terms of the Australian economy. As a growing and very significant sector of the economy, its role needs to be recognised in improving and increasing the balance of payments for Australia. In the same way as tourism grew from very small beginnings—if we go back to 1975, we had half a million international visitors and we now have close to four million international visitors—we are seeing the same trend here in the number of international students who are coming to Australia. In 1996, there were 53,188 who came to Australia. By the year 2000, it had reached 95,540. That is a very significant increase. The encouragement assistance and incentives by this government have obviously been beneficial. I pay tribute to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and his role in being out there and encouraging the various tertiary institutions in this country to take more international students. The figure for the year 2000 includes 53,456 commencing students, which is up from just 28,000 in 1996. Importantly, while this improvement has been going on, there has actually been a decline in the level of unmet demand for Australian students. It is 5.6 per cent lower than the 1997 figure. So there has been a big increase and there have been big returns to the Australian economy. As has been mentioned by other members, this issue is not only about pure economics but about leaders of neighbouring countries having come down to Australia to receive an education, having gained an understanding of the Australian way of life and having gained respect for our institutions and for the level of education that is provided. I think that is one of the absolute pluses of this. Seeing the shadow minister, the member for Reid, at the table and you, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, in the chair, I am reminded of our days in the New South Wales parliament. If I had to pick the Olympic member who supported Sydney's bid the most, I would have to choose the IOC member from Thailand, who provided us with constant information and who talked up the bid. The reason why he was so supportive was that his years as a student in Sydney gave him a great admiration for the Australian way of life. This is one example of where it obviously had ramifications for Australia. I have met a number of people in key areas with the same experience. During my years on the Tourism Council, I met one of the leaders of an international hotel chain who was visiting Australia. He gave as one of the reasons why he wanted to invest in Australia his very positive experience as a student in Australia. Those are two small examples but they nevertheless hold a lot of significance for Australia as we know it and for the Australian economy. Cultural exchange is important. It is important to see some of our near neighbours come to Australia as students. By far and away the biggest proportion of students comes from our regional neighbours. Around 85 per cent come from Asia, the top five countries being Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea. It is all-important in terms of our regional relationships to be encouraging students from these areas. The college that I am familiar with is the tourism college in Manly, which used to be the old St Patrick's College. It has been operating for only a couple of years, but 60 per cent of its students are international students and they come from all over the world. Upon graduation, they go into the hotel industry right around the world. The emerging industry of tourism in this country is an amazing development for Australia, and it is seen in the establishment of the college and the incredible support it has from international students.The package of bills replaces the original Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991. The original act was drafted to protect Australia's reputation in a growing industry by requesting education providers to register on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. It also attempted to provide cover for international students in case the provider failed financially. I give credit to the previous government for establishing this act. The original act worked in tandem with state and territory legislation and industry-level codes of practice. However, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the original legislation. It was originally subject to a sunset clause, which was due to come into operation in January 1994, but this was subsequently extended a number of times as the various legislators looked at how the effectiveness of the legislation could be improved. There were two Senate inquiries, and the industry itself has expressed concern about a number of weaknesses in the act. These include, firstly, the fact that the existing arrangements fail to protect student fees against the risk of collapse of the education provider. We have seen some examples of that, particularly in the English education area. Secondly, a large number of students were overstaying in Australia or were working in contravention of their visa conditions. Quite often, we observed that enrolment in college courses was aimed at avoiding the normal migration requirements and overstaying visa conditions. The Commonwealth simply did not have adequate powers to police or enforce the provisions of the act. So all of these concerns have led the government to bring these bills before the parliament to ensure that Australia continues as a very attractive destination for international students, with consequent benefits flowing to the economy, as has been outlined previously. The purposes of the bills are as follows. The principal bill, the Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000, contains the crucial legislative changes. The Education Services for Overseas Students (Assurance Fund Contributions) Bill 2000 separates the requirement to pay contributions and special levies from the principal bill. This is done because there is a chance that these fees could be classified as taxes. Under the Constitution, any tax must be considered under a separate bill, so that has been separated out for that reason. The Education Services for Overseas Students (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2000 repeals the original 1991 act and provides for transitional matters in the transfer of the new legislation. The legislation also amends the Migration Act to permit cooperation between the relevant government agencies and the states. The legislation further updates the initial and annual charges education providers must pay to be registered and provides for these charges to be linked to the CPI. Finally, it amends the Migration Act to provide for automatic visa appeal and cancellation where students have clearly abused the privileges given to them under their student visa. The legislation also allows ministerial discretion to reinstate the visa if it is found that this was done on a faulty basis.The key aspects of the legislation include the establishment of a national code. The bill provides for the establishment of a national code so that education providers can clearly understand what is expected of them in providing education for international students. This code will primarily be the responsibility of the states and territories, but it is obviously in the national interest to have a single code, and that is why it is in this legislation. The code will set out the values and standards that education providers must meet to be allowed to offer their services. The government's proposed amendments to the legislation accede to industry's requests that it be included in the drawing up of this document, alongside state and territory governments.In relation to registration, the legislation also requires that all providers of education services to overseas students must be registered. The legislation maintains the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. The register will be on the public record, and organisations will have to satisfy a number of conditions in order to be registered. These include a condition under the original act that the provider not have been convicted of an offence for at least five years. The provider must also be registered in Australia, be certified as complying with the national code and must have started paying annual amounts to the assurance fund, which is outlined further in the bill.The bill will make it an offence for unregistered entities to offer services as education providers to overseas students, with a maximum penalty of six months jail for breaches of this particular act. I think that is appropriate. Providers must also satisfy the secretary of the registry that they will not be engaging in deceptive practices, either in the provision of education or in relation to student visa conditions. Those operators who would go out and market it as a way to circumvent Australia's visa requirements will be sadly disappointed, because this bill provides for appropriate penalties for those who use it for those means or who do not provide the appropriate level of educational standards. Some of these substandard providers have led overseas consumers to believe they are being offered a quality product when clearly they are not, and we have seen some public examples of that in the media. The next aspect is the assurance fund. This fund is provided so that students who come to Australia have the assurance that if their training institution collapses—and at the moment they have no recourse for the fees they have paid out—they can be compensated. Funds will be provided from fees, late fees or any other application of fees determined by the registrar and will be automatically deducted from those education providers who are registered. These funds will go into a central fund. In the case of an education institution becoming bankrupt for some reason or other and no longer being able to provide the service, this fund will be used to compensate those who have paid out fees and who suddenly find themselves without an educational provider, upon determination by the registrar. A legal avenue of appeal for providers who would like a special levy or sanction decision to be reviewed is also established by the legislation to ensure that the provision is not abused.Turning to the migration changes, we have already discussed questions of deception on behalf of some of the education providers who offer courses as a cover for people to illegally work in Australia. Some providers also provide courses and tolerate the fact that students are working more hours than they attend college, which is obviously to the detriment of the course they are undertaking. So, for the first time, the legislation sets up the ability to track students. In the past, students arrived and there was no further checking that they were enrolled in the course they said they were enrolled in, how long they stayed, whether they overstayed their visa, et cetera. A tracking process is proposed under this legislation. From the time students arrive, where they are enrolled, how long they stay in their course and what work they are undertaking will be tracked so as to prevent the abuses of the system that we have seen in the past. It is proposed that the education offices will use encryption and other devices, working with the department of immigration, to ensure that they protect the privacy of individuals involved and also ensure the safeguarding of Australia's migration requirements.In conclusion I would like to say, as the member for Cook and on behalf of the government, that this is an outstanding bill. It does recognise the important contribution of this emerging and important industry. It is an industry that provides $3 billion to the Australian economy. I can think of some traditional industries in Australia today whose income would not reach $3 billion. It is an emerging industry. It is part of the services sector, which is so significant. For some time we as a parliament have been looking at the traditional industries, but here is a clear example of an emerging and significant industry that produces $3 billion in foreign exchange earnings. It brings students out to Australia. It offers significant tourism potential as parents, relatives and friends are invited down by the students as part of their stay in Australia; and it creates ambassadors for Australia who go back to their own countries and, because of the professional level at which they become involved in the affairs of their own countries—and many of them will become leaders—when looking for economic ties, political ties or defence arrangements with this country, they will be able to make a positive affirmation of the nature of our country and all the wonderful attributes that we in Australia recognise and value.We had the Colombo Plan many years ago, and that had some very significant benefits. But this legislation ensures that, under the new regime, when we have tertiary institutions in the marketplace looking for students on a global basis, they will have the protection that is necessary. While some of them may say that that adds to the cost at the bottom line, it does provide an assurance to those who come to Australia that, if they enrol in courses, they do have protection in terms of the fees they are paying if the course is no longer offered. It also cuts out some of the deceptive practices offered by some of the smaller colleges that avoid the migration requirements. As part of the amending legislation, we find changes to the Migration Act. It sets out a national register for those institutions that want to take international students and an agreement on the standards they must uphold in the courses offered, in the advice to students and in ensuring they are not using it as a means to avoid migration requirements. It is a very sensible approach. The legislation brings international educational services to a professional level. It brings them to a level equal to that experienced in many other Western countries. I think it is a significant step forward. I commend the minister for introducing the bill to the House. The bill has had an interesting progress. The original bill was initiated in 1991 but, of course, some of the provisions, once tested, were found to be deficient. This will tighten up the requirements. It will ensure that those who wish to come to Australia to study in our institutions can be assured of the quality of the education and that there will be continuing courses, because of the underlying guarantees that are given. I think it is an appropriate piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.19:07:0022485Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The package of bills that we are dealing with this evening goes to the issue of education services for overseas students. There are quite a number of bills that are dealing with that. The major measures contained in this legislation go to the following matters: the registration, on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, of courses and providers of education services to overseas students; responsibility to refrain from misleading or deceptive recruitment; responsibility to refund student fees in cases of closure, through a provider managed trust account—the notified trust account—requiring the provider to deposit prepaid course fees; provider membership of a tuition assurance scheme to ensure student access to alternative tuition in cases of provider closure; and penalties of suspension and cancellation from the Commonwealth register referred to earlier.As the honourable member for Cook pointed out, this package builds on legislation introduced by the former Labor government in 1991. Whilst some deficiencies over time have been recognised, which saw the need for legislation to come forward again, I think the basic reason for the legislation is to provide protection for students coming from overseas countries and for the providers of educational services in this country. Both sides of this parliament have recognised for some considerable period of time that this is necessary and have moved accordingly to put it in place.I also find myself in agreement with the honourable member for Cook inasmuch as he has talked about the role that education services play in terms of being an export earner for this country and a springboard, or a stepping board, for a number of related outcomes. The first of those is increased tourism. As students come here, families subsequently come back for holidays. The other issue is that it provides an opportunity for Australia to develop its export industry in a very real sense.Back in the period from 1991 to 1993 when I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister for foreign affairs and trade, one of the things I had responsibility for was the promotion of Australia's services exports, and I was particularly keen on promoting educational exports as a result of the way in which Australian educational institutions are structured. That goes certainly to universities—and I will come back and say something about that in a moment—but also to technical and further education colleges and school systems. I am sure that we all have students from foreign countries within our constituencies at schooling level who have come because they understand that our educational systems are second to none—particularly in terms of the immediate region. It is of great interest to people that they can come to this country. They know that students who come here get a quality education in a safe and secure environment. I think this is important as well.This was reinforced to me during my recent visit to Indonesia. During my time there—only for a few short days, regrettably—to discuss defence issues, I had the opportunity to speak to quite a number of people. Notwithstanding the way our relationship with that country is presently structured, I was surprised at the number of people who said they had family members attending Australia's educational institutions, particularly in Western Australia. In talking to those people and asking why they had decided to send their children to this country in preference to, perhaps, the United States or somewhere else, they said it was because they recognised that the quality of education in this country was second to none. An equal factor in their decision that Australia was the place they wanted their children to go was the lifestyle and the security that could be afforded to their children. I was taken by the fact—and it was also mentioned by the honourable member for Cook—that, in the last decade, the Australian education and training export industry has grown in size and economic importance to the extent that it has been estimated to be worth $3 billion per annum to Australia, and it is our fifth largest export industry. That is quite an outstanding figure in anyone's language. When you look around our immediate region, you can see the effect with which our particular education system has been put in place to assist in that export drive. Not only that, of course, but in Malaysia, I think, they have adopted the South Australian higher school certificate curriculum, so the education is based on an Australian state's education system. I think we do find that that $3 billion a year we are earning has had an incredible impact within this nation. We on this side are looking at ways we can assist that process when we come into government, through the further creation of knowledge nation concepts. We recognise that we need to improve those standards and that by doing so it offers an additional incentive for people to send their children—and older students, of course—to this country from overseas. This clearly is a real reason why we should be supporting legislation of this nature.I understand from statistics I have seen that overseas student numbers have grown from an estimated 50,000 in 1990 to 150,000 in 1999, and I am not surprised that that is the case. As I said earlier, in my own electorate I have seen students come from diverse overseas backgrounds, from places like Japan, Malaysia and Middle Eastern countries, to attend high schools and, importantly, the University of Wollongong. I am not surprised that they have done so. At the University of Wollongong—Australia's University of the Year for the second successive year—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MP8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN—I concede to my friend the member for Groom that it was a joint award this year with the University of Southern Queensland, which is in his constituency. I am sure he will forgive me if I concentrate my contribution tonight on the University of Wollongong. The University of Wollongong has in excess of 70 foreign nationalities, who have chosen the University of Wollongong for the quality of education that is on offer there. As is the case with many other educational institutions within Australia, the university is reaching out to our immediate region and beyond in providing educational services. The University of Wollongong has established a campus in Dubai; in fact, Australia is the first foreign country to be given a licence to build a brand new campus in Dubai. As a consequence of that, the University of Wollongong is offering a variety of courses in that particular location which, together with its new campus, will make it even more attractive to people in the broader region of the Middle East. The university also offers a Bachelor of Business Studies in Malaysia and is actively promoting itself into Hong Kong and Indonesia, where a field office has been established. The reason it is doing that is that it can offer Australian high quality, high standard in-depth education to people in our immediate region. The benefits that flow from that should never be understated. The member for Cook talked about this as well, and I absolutely concur with him. Today's graduate of the University of Wollongong, in some years down the track, may be the next foreign minister to Malaysia—perhaps not a very good choice at this stage; nevertheless, I am sure in time it will happen. Today's graduate in commerce from the University of Wollongong may become the defence minister of Thailand. Today's information technology graduate from the University of Wollongong may be in charge of China's Telecom in the future. These sorts of possibilities are there. It is important that we understand that, by creating a strong, academically sound basis for educational attainment in this nation, not only are we giving those opportunities to Australians but also we are playing a real role in our region, and perhaps a little wider afield, by being able to compete appropriately. The University of Wollongong is involved in that. It is leading the way through its international division. It has people who are always on the lookout for ways in which those services can be promoted—in the same way that Monash University, the University of Southern Queensland and a whole range of other universities are out there actively lobbying abroad—to ensure that it can make ends meet and that it can provide educational opportunities. One of the issues that the University of Wollongong is looking at at the moment, and it is relevant to the legislation we are debating tonight, is the delivery of educational services via the Internet—the way in which the dot coms of the world today can provide a real opportunity for the delivery of education services. My friend the member for Groom is no doubt going to make some comments about that for the University of Southern Queensland, which was the joint winner of the award because of its delivery of education through e-commerce and through the Net itself. I am sure he will be able to back up what I am saying, because it is the way of the future. There is no doubt about that in my mind. As one travels around our region, you can see that all the prestigious universities of the world—such as Harvard—are in Hong Kong, Japan, and other major capitals of Asia. They might be trying to push their MBAs or trying to do all sorts of other things but, at the end of the day, they are about providing quality education through residential schools and distance education. Australian universities, like the University of Wollongong, are looking at ways in which that can be enhanced.When students come to our country, they have to be sure that the quality of education will be sound and that, if they are coming here for educational enrichment, the colleges, the universities, the business colleges will remain on a sound footing. For that reason, this legislation is indeed timely. What we do not want to see—as I am sure many of us have seen in the past—is some of those shonky fly-by-nighters, particularly English language institutions, that seem to disappear, leaving a whole bunch of students in the lurch. These sorts of issues can be tackled through this legislation but, at the end of the day, this country has to be proud that it is taking the opportunity, through educational institutions such as the University of Wollongong, the TAFE system in New South Wales, and our high school system, to ensure that we can deliver educational services and quality education.Down the track it will be returned two-fold because most of the alumni who go back to their overseas countries—whether they find their way into politics, government or business—will go back with a fine impression of Australia because of the education system they have been able to enjoy. If that is the case, you promote a whole range of other things. Yes, there is economic benefit, but at the same time there are also the benefits that flow from better education and better knowledge of each other. That goes into security in the region. As somebody on our side of parliament who has a great interest in that particular issue, I can see the way in which education can play a valuable role.This legislation is timely. The provisions which we have heard the member for Cook and others talk about this evening go a great deal of the way to ensure that we have a very different environment—where educational providers do the right thing through registration processes and deal with the states and territories, ensuring that industries have voluntary codes and so on that all apply to the same basic goal—that of a quality education, delivered by quality institutions and providing outcomes for Australia down the track that are going to be in everyone's interests.19:22:0022488Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I thank the member for Cunningham and the previous speakers, the member for Cook and even the member for Dobell. I thought the roof was almost going to fall in when I heard the member for Dobell actually supporting some legislation to do with education put forward by our government. But I do sincerely thank him and the previous two speakers for their support for these education services bills. As previous speakers have said, Australia is a destination that many people aspire to come to. It is a place where they come for tourism and education. They see it as a secure place and a place in which they can receive a standard of education and an insight into life that perhaps they may not be able to receive in their own country. As the member for Cunningham so kindly mentioned, I have a fine university in my electorate which has a great deal of involvement in overseas education, with students either coming to our beautiful city and attending the university or, as an alternative, studying over the Internet. The University of Southern Queensland has a distinguished reputation in catering for students should they choose to stay at the campus or should they wish to study from overseas. The USQ is one of the `new age' universities. It is a university built on `clicks and mortar'. It is a university that uses the latest Internet technology to enable it to take education to all parts of the globe. The USQ, which is in Toowoomba, is a regional university. It has been rated one of the best in the world and the best in Australia for its commitment to serving people from all cultural backgrounds. It is a provider of distance education, servicing thousands of students in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and beyond—by `beyond' I mean overseas—and has one of the largest enrolments of students studying offshore of any university in Australia. While excellence and achievement are the USQ's hallmark, the defining characteristics of the University of Southern Queensland is that, of its 19,000 students, 75 per cent do not occupy the campus; they study where they live. They study through an innovative distance education program which includes, of course, the use of the Internet. The USQ has led the field in state-of-the art e-education.I again remind the House that the USQ has been acknowledged both nationally and internationally as one of the great universities of the world. This fine regional university was honoured this year, as the member for Cunningham alluded to, by receiving the University of the Year Award in conjunction with the University of Wollongong. In speaking about the USQ, I would also like to acknowledge the work of Professor Swannell, who has done an enormous job in building up the university with the very fine and able support of his highly professional staff. In receiving the University of the Year Award, the USQ has now received due recognition for the place it holds in our education system. Last year the USQ was awarded two prestigious international prizes of excellence for being one of the world's best dual-mode universities. This means that it was the best in the world at providing people with flexible alternatives to having to go on campus to study. This suits ideally the attraction of either overseas students physically or their study and the income that that derives. These awards were made by the International Council for Open and Distance Education, a peak body representing distance education providers from 130 countries worldwide and backed by UNESCO. So the international accolades that the USQ receives and the import income that that generates are certainly well recognised.In the context of this legislation, USQ is a major export earner for my region and for Australia. It is the single biggest employer in Toowoomba, employing 1,209 people. Last year alone, USQ reaped education exports worth around $13 million. And the awards do not stop with academic excellence. Last year USQ was nationally recognised for its export effort, winning two prizes at the multicultural marketing awards organised by the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission. The awards were in recognition of the university's ability to provide a world-class university experience for people from a variety of cultural backgrounds—ideally dovetailing into this issue of attracting people from overseas to come here to be educated. Across Australia, education is a major export earner, as mentioned by a number of the previous speakers. Training and education exports are worth around $3 billion a year for Australia. Overseas student numbers in Australia have grown from an estimated 50,000 in 1990 to 150,000—a growth that outstrips even the export growth of the wine industry, I would suggest to the member for Barker. To service this industry, the number of private education providers has expanded by approximately 1,000. In the publicly administered and funded education sector, reliance on overseas students as a source of revenue has also increased. In the higher education sector, where 50 per cent of overseas students are enrolled, fee paying overseas students now account for 8.3 per cent of revenue. Commonwealth regulation of providers in education export industries is the responsibility of DETYA. However, immigration matters relating to overseas students are the responsibility of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. That is why we are dealing with this legislation in this fashion. It is on the migration aspects of the Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000 that I plan to focus my contribution in the House tonight and probably tomorrow as well. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs are interlinked as regulatory regimes. It is an unfortunate reality that we have a situation where more people than we can handle—and perhaps some of whom are undesirable—wish to come to this country to be educated. I cannot blame them. I cannot think of a better place to live. It is a great country with great people.Debate interrupted. Adjournment2248910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2248919:30:0022489Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Government ministers and backbenchers are fond of making unsubstantiated allegations of vote rorting against Labor MPs. The Prime Minister, I note, has written to the Queensland Premier seeking widening of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice Commission to cover federal matters. The Prime Minister might like to refer this document to the Criminal Justice Commission or alternatively to the Australian Federal Police: the document is entitled `Queensland Liberals, MacGregor-Wishart Branch, Notice of Branch Meeting, Agenda' and so on, and goes on to provide the minutes of the meeting. At the meeting, this motion was put, under the heading of `Fixing the Queensland Liberals':This branch calls upon the state executive to hold a postal referendum of all party members as soon as possible asking their permission to suspend the party's constitution in order to allow the federal secretariat to take over the party and restore the party's finances, remove debilitating cronyism, improve the party's standing in the community and restore the party to its proper place in Queensland politics, as a formidable giant in opposition to the Labor Party with a strong belief in common sense. Moved, Mark Scott; seconded, Steven Huang.The motion was lost. Two members of the Liberal Party in the seat of Moreton put a motion forward to clean up the Liberal Party in Queensland and call in the national body; the motion was debated and was lost. The seconder for the motion, Steven Huang, is the Liberal candidate in the state seat of Mount Gravatt. The Liberal candidate in the state seat of Mount Gravatt was calling upon the federal party to come in, intervene and clean up cronyism, and the motion was defeated. It was defeated by whom? The member for Moreton—because this was a meeting at which he was in attendance, as further details of the minutes reveal. I seek leave to table this document.Leave not granted.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—I am shocked and dismayed. I note in addition that the Australian Federal Police are investigating suspected attempts at fraudulent enrolments in the seat of Ryan, the defence minister's seat. On Monday night a ballot was held in Ryan for the chair of the Ryan electoral commission, where 428 people voted. The result of that ballot, which was a rerun of an earlier ballot, was that the election of former party president Bob Tucker was overturned. Who organised the ballot? Who organised the 428 people? Senator Brandis, the world champion branch stacker. It is the same senator who in an electorate pamphlet claimed he was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. He was not. He was not a member of that committee but he is telling everyone in Queensland that he is a member of this committee and he is going to clean up these rorts. He is the world champion rorter! He is the gold medal rorter! I also refer to a document of 10 September in which the same Senator Brandis is quoted in a story as follows:Liberal Senator George Brandis today revealed a plan to stamp out branch stacking in his party.He is the world champion stacker! He said:“The idea that you can sign up 200 people in Fig Tree Pocket in suburban Brisbane to a branch on the Sunshine Coast (100km away) affronts people as being an abuse of the process and an abuse of the system.”That is exactly what he did. People were `parachuted' out of the seat of Moreton and out of the seat of Rankin; a Liberal Party branch was established to do some branch stacking in my seat of Rankin, and then, when it no longer needed people there, it moved them into Ryan. Now we have allegations of electoral fraud in the seat of Ryan, which are being investigated by the Australian Federal Police. We have the world champion branch stacker in charge of cleaning up rorting in the Queensland Liberal Party. The irony will not be lost on anyone. I think it would be very useful for the Prime Minister to have a look at this, because he is the one who is condoning the branch stacking and rorting activities in the Liberal Party and the continuing struggle between Bob Tucker and the western suburbs faction and the Santoro faction, Senator Brandis being a member of the Santoro faction. The Prime Minister is condoning the member for Moreton stopping attempts by the state candidate for Mount Gravatt to clean up rorting in the Queensland Liberal Party. I suggest the Prime Minister and Senator Brandis have a look in their own house before they make unsubstantiated allegations about members of the Labor Party.2249019:35:0022490Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—I rise with the concurrence of the members for Riverina, Mitchell and Macquarie, who are New South Wales parliamentary members who have concerns about the introduction of the disease fire blight to this country. The risk of importing the disease fire blight on New Zealand apples is a very real and dangerous threat to the Australian apple and pear industry, from producers through to canneries and nurseries. The recent release of a draft import analysis paper by Biosecurity Australia, which was more recently an organisation within the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, has already triggered alarm bells about the department's lack of due diligence and duty of care, particularly as it relates to the lack of scientific process and analysis on the potential for other identifiable quarantine pests such as thrips, leaf rollers, midges and blister mites as carriers of the disease fire blight. Where is the scientific research evidence which conclusively proves that fire blight cannot spread from fruit to other suitable hosts? AQIS's generic questions to a number of scientists were specifically designed so that the responses overlooked known scientific research which, if included in the question, would have changed the answer given. There is no scientific work to demonstrate that fire blight cannot spread from fruit to a suitable host. In asking the four scientists for their opinion, AQIS posed a generic question, not a specific high risk question. What would the response have been if the question had been, for example:If New Zealand apples with the fire blight bacteria residing together with undetected apple midge in the calyx were discarded near a flowering host plant, what would be the chance of fire blight establishing in the host plant?The question should also have been accompanied by the relevant known scientific work that has been done. This includes the fact that fire blight has been found in the stems and calyxes of fruit such as this apple that I have brought from my growers in Batlow; the fact that, if fruit is treated with chlorine, it is ineffective in killing the bacteria residing in the calyx; the fact that insects have been identified as a high-risk carrier of the bacterium; and the fact that in controlled laboratory tests the inoculation of flowers with single bacteria resulted in 60 per cent infection. Scientists state that in suitable climatic conditions a single bacterium has the ability to produce one trillion cells in three days. Trash, which is the stalk and leaves, has been clearly identified as a high-risk vector for fire blight. You would expect AQIS to ensure that any inspection procedure would be designed to make sure that fire blight would be discovered in any inspection if present. All the evidence available clearly demonstrates that the random sampling of 600 pieces of fruit is insufficient to demonstrate the absence of trash. Proper due diligence by AQIS would have identified this. AQIS states in its document that it has consulted 15 scientists in arriving at its conclusions. At meetings since the release of the IRA, AQIS representations have stated that only half of these scientists responded and that much of this process was done on an informal basis. AQIS has a responsibility to prove all of the relevant facts when making statements that are relevant to the assessment of the level of due diligence that it has undertaken. It is AQIS's clear responsibility to ensure that no individual is compromised if there is a potential conflict of interest. The key questions used to assess the level of risk were determined by asking four scientists their opinion. Two of these scientists are engaged by the United States government or rely on the American apple industry for their employment. When the United States has an application before AQIS to export apples to Australia in similar circumstances to New Zealand, normal practice would be to exclude them. With international standards being a key basis for any protocol or risk analysis, you would expect AQIS to source the most relevant documentation available. It obviously has not done that. I know that apple growers in the Batlow area, like apple growers right across this country, are extremely concerned about the way in which AQIS has gone about this IRA and, more importantly, about the lack of scientific proof that what they are saying is in fact correct. I thank the parliament for the opportunity to talk here tonight on this fire blight disease issue. I live in hope that the government will make the right decision to ensure that beautiful apples like this Pink Kissed apple from Batlow remain on our markets disease free.2249119:40:0022491Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Tonight, on behalf of thousands of elderly citizens in Australia I would like to register disappointment, particularly with our Prime Minister, regarding the promise the Prime Minister made twice in August, on the 18th and the 25th, that people over the age of 60 would get a $1,000 savings bonus. That was both on the radio in Perth, on 6PR, and at the Carseldine retirement village in Brisbane on the 18th, where he said:For every person 60 and over there will be a savings bonus, a one-off tax-free payment of $1,000 in relation to investment income that you might have. I am speaking not just on behalf of elderly people in my electorate of Braddon, where some 300,000 responded to their disappointment in the Prime Minister's broken promise—5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Three thousand.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Three thousand, sorry. It is probably 300,000 easily throughout the country. I am also speaking on behalf of the member for Kingsford-Smith, with 5,000 letters addressed to the Prime Minister, and the member for Lalor, with some 1,500 letters addressed to the Prime Minister. In total, that is nearly 10,000 letters signed by elderly people who went out of their way to address this issue to the Prime Minister. It is interesting. One of them says:Dear Prime Minister,Before the 1998 federal election you promised older Australians that they would receive a $1,000 savings bonus, but many people have not received this. It is wrong that you can make such a promise to people and then not deliver on it. I would like to register my complaint that you have broken your promise to older Australians, just as you broke your promise to never, ever introduce the GST that has left so many people worse off. Nearly 300,000 Australians will have a one-off payment of between $1 and $50, according to Senate estimates, and over 43 per cent of people over the age of 60 will receive no payment at all. On behalf of those people, my colleagues and I are going to deliver their signed petitions to the Prime Minister and register their very deep disappointment.2249219:42:0022492Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I wish to draw to the attention of the House the plight that was suffered by a gentleman in my electorate named Mr Scoble. He suffered from a practice that is known as `slamming' or `churning'. It is a practice that, until fairly recently, has been unknown in our part of the world, though perhaps it has been known in other parts of Australia. Mr Scoble's wife was rung one day by One.Tel, various facts were misrepresented and Mr Scoble's wife agreed to transfer their account from Telstra to One.Tel. When Mr Scoble found out about this, he contacted One.Tel immediately, because, in the first instance, that is not supposed to take place unless the personal authorisation of the account holder is gained. He went to the Department of Fair Trading, and they gave him a phone number to ring One.Tel on. He spoke to an answering machine at One.Tel. I understand that a One.Tel executive rang him back some time later and, after being most put out on finding out where he got the phone number from, said that his account would be swapped back to Telstra within seven days. Mr Scoble did not know whether this reconnect was going to happen, and he also did not know whether there was going to be a charge to reconnect. He was so upset and distressed about this that he actually pulled the phone out of the wall: he penalised himself and was unable to use the phone because he was so worried that he would be receiving a bill from One.Tel instead of Telstra.I understand that, once some of these smaller companies have taken customers by churning or slamming and then indicate that they will pass them back to Telstra when a complaint has been made, they often do not do that because there is a transfer fee. They have originally paid the transfer fee to get the customer from Telstra to their accounts, and they would prefer Telstra to act on behalf of the aggrieved customer and transfer them back so that Telstra pays the fee. I understand that many companies have been involved in this and that court proceedings have happened. I know that Telstra and Optus, AAPT and Primus have all been involved in different court actions. Some of the things that happen under this process of doorknocking are often done by contractors and not by the companies themselves. The contractors are paid on a success basis, so it is often in their interest to misrepresent the facts. When doorknocking is taking place, sometimes a customer is given a form and told, `Just sign here', with all sorts of excuses such as, `This is so that my manager knows that I have been here,' `We will send you a brochure,' `Sign here; we will put you on the mailing list' or `Sign here, we are just taking part in a market survey.' Apparently, they also use out-of-date pricing and price comparisons when forcing the argument, and they also often misrepresent themselves by saying that they are a part of Telstra, they are selling in an area of Telstra, they are affiliated with Telstra or that they are the same company as Telstra. They prey more severely on the people in our community who are least able to look into and judge the offer being made. I am told that of the total complaints in 1999-2000, the major carriers accounted for 58.6 per cent and the three minor communications companies accounted for 20 per cent. In the first quarter of September, those three carriers had jumped to being responsible for 36 per cent of the complaints. Again with those three smaller companies, the complaints about slamming in the last three years have gone up from 33 per cent to 38 per cent to 48 per cent, 70 per cent of transfer complaints are about slamming and 20 per cent of all complaints are about slamming. The major carriers have reached an agreement that they should develop a code of practice. With the development of greater choice of service providers, the consumers are now more able to transfer from one telecommunications service to another. However, this increased ease has brought about the problems that I have described. The development of a code to address industry practices to obtain the transfer of a customer's service has been given a high priority. Some of the things identified would be identification of the authorised consumer, the transfer process code rules to set out standards of conduct to ensure that customers are not harassed or coerced into agreeing to a transfer of service, and that, as far as verification goes, code rules ensure that the transfer request is verified in that process and it is independent of the process undertaken by the original sales representative. (Time expired)2249319:47:0022493O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—As I have already pointed out today, agriculture, dairying, fishing, food and beverages constitute a major part of the Tasmanian economy. In fact, they represent about one-third of the Tasmanian gross state product and are responsible for approximately 700,000 jobs. In 1997-98 it was estimated that the value of primary production to Tasmania was $931 million, and around 8.5 per cent of the Tasmanian working population are farmers. Tasmania's primary industries continue to undergo considerable change due to rapid alteration in global markets, economic instability and the emergence of new industries, especially in horticulture and aquaculture. Tasmanian farmers are dealing simultaneously with drought, low commodity prices, dairy deregulation, the introduction of the GST and the retraction of services in rural communities. It is no secret that many farmers are being driven to the wall. Tasmanian primary industries are largely undertaken in regional, rural and non-urban areas of Tasmania and, consequently, these industries are very important to those economies. The principal Tasmanian primary industries are vegetable growing, with $216.5 million in turnover; dairy, with $21.3 million in turnover; beef, with $84.3 million in turnover; and sheep, with $76.5 million in turnover. The average value of liabilities faced by Tasmanian farmers in 1999 was $818,000. The Rural Support Service was predominantly accessed by farmers in the beef and milk industry. In 1994, the profit margin for Tasmanian farm businesses was 17.1 per cent; in 1998, it was 14.9 per cent. In 1994, the return on farm operating equipment was 20.3 per cent and in 1998 it had decreased to 17.2 per cent. Performance indicators show that Tasmania has the lowest farm business profit margin of any state. Tasmanian farm business returns on operating costs were around 10.8 per cent lower than those of the average Australian farmer. Tasmanian farmers receive an average return on assets of only 3.3 per cent, whereas the Australian average is around 4.4 per cent. Tasmanian farmers are really hurting. Farmers involved in dairying in the north-east of my electorate are learning to battle with deregulation. Farmers whose families have held properties and have farmed them for generations are being forced off their farms by their financial difficulties. Only two months ago, we were contacted by a farmer who was distressed at having to sell the family car in order to meet repayments. In a particularly heart-rending gesture, the farmer's children also offered to sell their bikes to help pay the bills. The sale of the vehicle resulted in the family being socially isolated in a regional, marginal area. Another farmer sold his farm because he felt his children were being disadvantaged by their situation. He was struggling to clothe and feed them.Farmers are existing with a standard of living below that of the ordinary Australian. So the question we must ask is: what is this government doing to rural families and what is it doing for rural families? It appears the answer in this case is: threatening to cut their already dwindling services. Despite the aforementioned plight faced by Tasmanian farmers, Tasmania has only two rural support counsellors for the whole of the state, and demand for their services is increasing. The service is possibly going to be axed in June 2001. Furthermore, there is no other comparable service in Tasmania. The Rural Counselling Service has operated throughout Australia since the mid-1980s, providing financial counselling to families suffering during a rural crisis. In Tasmania, the Rural Counselling Service is known as Rural Support Tasmania. The two financial counsellors have been operating since July 1998 and will continue only until June 2001. The government is currently reviewing the Rural Communities Program—and we all know what that means. Currently, federal funding provides approximately half of the budget for the Rural Counselling Service and the balance comes from local communities and state governments. The Rural Counselling Service offers the following benefits. It is cost-effective, efficiently streamlined, versatile and professional. It offers free confidential and independent advice to approximately 7,000 farm families and rural businesses Australia wide. The service assists in the preparation of clients for Centrelink interviews, and results in the expedition of claims. Cessation of the program will beleaguer approximately 1,000 families who are currently involved in complex business negotiations and transactions.Serious financial difficulties will still face rural businesses and farming families. Loss of the program would result in the loss of an established comprehensive network of support services to rural and farming areas, and withdrawal of federal support would result in the total termination of counselling, planning and business management services in many rural areas. Uncertainty about the further funding of this service is creating great anxiety amongst rural communities. As farmers are finally getting used to accessing a service which traditionally they have not been comfortable with and which actually provides them with some level of dignity, the future of this service is in jeopardy. This move flies in the face of the Prime Minister's previous statement that there will be no reduction in rural services. One of the original aims of this program was to discourage rural families' dependence on welfare and to assist them to become even more productive members of the community. Instead, these moves by the government, we would argue, are having the reverse effect. The government is showing an appalling lack of commitment to rural Australia. How much more can Tassie farmers take? If the government does not look after our primary industries, we risk threatening our export foundations and that would have ramifications for our local, domestic and international economies. The government fails to ensure access to appropriate financial counselling and undermines our farmers' ability to participate in a viable agricultural industry. I call on the minister to ensure the continued provision of financial counselling services.2249419:53:0022494Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—I rise tonight to support my colleague the member for Hume concerning the import risk analysis process that is coming under scrutiny once again, this time in relation to apple imports from New Zealand. Australia has a healthy and disease free apple and pear industry. It is worth about $400 million per annum and, of course, many jobs. Fire blight is a virulent disease that destroys pear and apple orchards. Pears and pink lady apple rootstock are particularly susceptible to the disease. The disease is endemic in New Zealand and in 40 other nations. It infects and kills the blossoms, flowers, stems, fruit, leaves, branches and sometimes whole trees. The pink lady apple was bred in my electorate and this is probably the reason I have taken a particular interest in this issue. It was bred at Illawarra Orchard. This orchard has been in the same family for 100 years. Last year they celebrated 100 years in orcharding. They have a fine reputation for producing clean, quality apples. There are many other growers in my electorate who grow this and other varieties of apples and pears. This particular apple, along with other varieties, has been an outstanding export success.As I say, I have a particular interest in ensuring that the risk analysis process attaching to the importation of apples from New Zealand is most rigorously adhered to and at least carried out in accordance with the process and protocols adopted in the AQIS handbook. The AQIS handbook sets out the process and protocol dealing with risk analysis. Do not let anyone be in any doubt that, although there has been a change of name, there has really been a rebadging. Biosecurity is the new name, but the process goes on in much the same way as it did before. I have outlined in this House before the handbook's protocols and processes and I am not going to repeat those tonight, but I am going to raise some of the responses from the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association to the process that has been carried out in relation to the risk analysis. My colleague raised some of them and I will touch on just a couple. One of the allegations is that trees in New Zealand would be considered fire blight free if branches showing signs of the disease had been pruned out. Yet there is scientific evidence to show that the disease remains in the tree even when the obvious external signs have been removed. In terms of storage and transportation, the protocols rely on New Zealand growers completely isolating export apples from fruit grown in fire blight affected orchards, but that assumes a flawless process. Mistakes happen in storage and transport and short cuts are taken. Given the importance of this industry to Australia and to our fruit canneries, I think we should expect the most rigorous technical processes to be applied. It is important to point out to the House that an independent estimate indicates that $1 billion would be lost over six years if fire blight took a hold and destroyed the pear industry and reduced the yield from apple crops. This would be a devastating blow to rural and regional areas around Australia that rely on these crops for a substantial part of their economy. As I have said, the impact extends to fruit canneries.The key issue in keeping fire blight out of Australia is ensuring that there are watertight controls, that orchards exporting apples to Australia are free of the disease and that strict controls are implemented in relation to packing, storing, handling, transportation and ongoing inspections. Growers deserve nothing less than the most rigorous process—an open, accountable and transparent process—and access to the basis on which the decision has been made. In the past that has not been as forthcoming as it might. I am pleased to see that the Senate is having an inquiry into this issue. I hope that it will clear up some of the matters that have been raised by the apple and pear industry in Australia. I urge all growers and those who are interested in this issue to make their submissions to that Senate inquiry and to make sure that everyone understands the risks and the problems that could beset Australian growers if New Zealand apples are allowed in without the strictest controls. (Time expired)2249519:57:0022495Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—In December last year I brought to the attention of the House a remarkable woman, Marilyn Roberts, a constituent of mine, who lives in Clayton and studies full time at Monash University. Marilyn has devoted most of her life to working for Australian aid agencies abroad. On her return to Australia, Marilyn realised she needed further education to assist her gain access to full-time employment, so she embarked on a teaching degree at Monash. Marilyn relies on Austudy for her income and rent. Marilyn brought to my attention her plight and that of numerous other mature age students who had been discriminated against by this government. When the government introduced youth allowance in July 1998 for students and the unemployed under 25, one of the big selling points was that students would be eligible for rent assistance. What they did not say was that if you were a student who just happened to be over 25 you did not get rent assistance.I raised Marilyn's concerns in this House and, instead of Marilyn sitting back waiting for the change to happen, she armed herself with Hansard, proof that someone was listening, and started to campaign to make the change happen. Marilyn started a petition—a small thing, one would think. No, Marilyn knew that, if it was going to work, it needed to be big. So, in conjunction with the Monash Mature Age and Part-Time Student Association, Marilyn made it big and made it happen. The Austudy Campaign Team—ACT—was formed and, with the great help of Khrstene Dalecki, the petition was commenced. To date I have tabled 1,919 signatures to the petition. ACT did not restrict itself to Monash or even to Victoria. No, the petition has been an Australia-wide petition with concerned students at campuses across Australia saying to this government that they have been discriminating against mature age students. Marilyn currently spends $98 per week on rent for a one-room bed-sit on a major road. It is generally accepted that 25 to 30 per cent of income is a comfortable level to spend on housing to cover the other necessities of life. Even on full Austudy, 25 to 30 per cent of income translates to $63, leaving Marilyn already $35 behind the eight ball. A recent study by La Trobe University has found that undergraduate poverty impacts detrimentally on academic performance. It is a little hard to study when you are concerned about paying rent, rego, gas, electricity and buying food—the little frivolous things in life.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0022496House adjourned at 8 p.m.Notices22496The following notices were given:YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the Defence Force, and for related purposes.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott to present a bill for an act to protect members of the Reserves in their employment and education, to facilitate their return to civilian life, and for related purposes.2000-11-08—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members224972249709:40:0022497Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—The Gippsland Public Leadership Awards recognise young people who have consistently shown, through their actions, a significant commitment to public service within their school or the wider community, specifically through involvement in voluntary work, student leadership or community services. I established the Gippsland Public Leadership Awards this year and I am extremely proud to be able to report that the McMillan electoral district has produced some outstanding young award winners—young people with a real commitment to public leadership and community service. The 2000 Gippsland Public Leadership Award winners are as follows: from Beaconhills College, Sarah Ballantyne-Brodie, Mitchell Zadow and Christopher Gerbing; from my old school, Catholic Regional College, Naomi O'Brien and Thomas McQualter; from Chairo Christian School, Sharon Burke and Justin Ballantyne; from Drouin Secondary College, Michelle Olsen and Robert Richardson; from Kurnai College, Brooke Cooper and Mathew Parniak; from Lowanna College, Ann Nelson and Glen Ross; from Marist Sion College, Elaine Miles and Andrew Rovers; from Neerim District Secondary College, Jaclyn Young, Kylie Gaffney and Simon Carter; from Pakenham Secondary College, Kathryn Webster and Brett Myers; from Presentation College, Danielle Lawrence and Michael Verhoeven; from St Paul's Anglican Grammar School, Rynelle Walker and Jared Ahale; from St Thomas Aquinas College, Jodie Youngman and Christopher Youngman; from Trafalgar High School, Sarah Flahavin and Michael Woods; from Traralgon Secondary College, Eliza van der Meer and Justin Woodroffe; and from Warragul Regional College, Sarah Hobgen.I really admire the efforts and commitment of these fantastic young leaders. I am sure that the House will join with me in congratulating them on their achievements and wishing them well.2249709:42:0022497Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I refer to the recent decision by the New South Wales government to legalise the use of cannabis for pain relief by terminally ill patients, despite the fact that the use of cannabis is against the law in New South Wales. I have concerns about this initiative on two counts. Firstly, it is against the present law of the land; and, secondly, it sends the message that cannabis is some sort of tonic. This continues the mythology that this drug is harmless, while nothing could be further from the truth.Major Brian Watters, of the Salvation Army, got it right when he said in the Daily Telegraph on 3 November that `if cannabis has therapeutic components for pain relief and relief from nausea, then we should extract those ingredients and make them available in measured medical doses like any other medicine'. With estimates of about 14,000 people in New South Wales who could meet the criteria qualifying them to grow up to five plants each, this could mean that there could be around 70,000 legal plants growing in suburban backyards all over New South Wales. In what other circumstance do we allow patients to produce their own medication? How could we then have any hope of trying to lawfully control this insidious, destructive drug? Let us face it: this is really about decriminalising marijuana by degrees of stealth.It seems to me that as a people we have to decide whether or not we wish to live under the rule of law. If the answer is yes, we should totally ban illicit substances and actively do everything within our power to create support for those who are addicted to be detoxed and rehabilitated so that they can lead drug-free lives. If the answer is no, we might as well give up here and now and accept the consequences that come with that decision. The problem with the decriminalisation of cannabis for pain relief, as humane and compassionate as it may sound, is that it creates the impression that the smoking of cannabis is therapeutic. Young people can become enthralled by marijuana and can be led to a life of depression, hopelessness and inconsolable isolation. Many clients who are admitted to drug treatment programs identify cannabis as a factor in their addiction histories. It is also identified as a significant element in psychiatric hospital admissions. I commend the leaflet published by the Australian Medical Association titled `Taking a closer look at cannabis and your health—theshort and long term effects'. I applaud the AMA for lending their weight and authority to the real truth behind this illicit drug. Today, there is significant scientific research and personal anecdotal evidence of users which show us that marijuana is not harmless. Promoting it as a medicine is dangerous. There are other medications which will alleviate pain for terminally ill patients without the negative, depressive, psychotic aspects of marijuana.This move is an attempt to legalise the drug by degrees, playing on our sympathy and our compassion. However, the most important aspect of the current development is that the laws are being bent for specific purposes. I say again that, sooner or later, as a people we must decide whether or not we wish to live under the rule of law. This is a real issue about which there has been no public debate. The choices we make will have real consequences for our children and for the kind of society we become.2249809:45:0022498Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—It is a pleasure to talk today about some people who came to see me some months ago regarding the microcredit scheme, which members who are here today may be aware of. Microcredit is the provision of small loans to entrepreneurs too poor to qualify for loans from the mainstream financial institutions. It has proven to be an effective measure in the ongoing struggle against poverty, enabling those previously without access to credit on reasonable terms to borrow at reasonable commercial interest rates to start a small business. Over the last 25 years, microcredit programs have been established in many developing and developed countries. There are now more than 1,000 microcredit programs operating to serve more than 22 million poor families around the world, including nearly 13 million people who are among the poorest in their countries. A summit was held in relation to microcredit in February 1997. More than 2,900 people from 137 countries attended the microcredit summit held in Washington DC. The summit launched a nine-year campaign to ensure that 100 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women of those families, are receiving credit for self-employment and other financial and business services by 2005.I found this a very intriguing program because the basis of the program was really helping people to help themselves and doing it very much on an individual basis—or, in this case, on a microbasis. That is certainly something that is well worth while. I understand that funding for microcredit in Australia's overseas aid program has increased steadily over recent years, with $6.6 million allocated in 1996-97. I do not have more recent figures than that, but my understanding is that it has generally had broad support.What also really appeals about microcredit is that it looks at the question: why would you target women? The reason you target women is that, of the 1.2 billion people living on less than $1 a day, 900 million, nearly 75 per cent, are women. Women are often responsible for the upbringing of the world's children, and the poverty of the women generally results in the physical and social underdevelopment of their children. Experience shows that women are a good credit risk and that women invest their income towards the wellbeing of their families. At the same time, women themselves benefit from the higher social status they achieve within the home when they are able to provide income. What this program suggests is that there is a great deal that can be done in a situation with a lot of money being required but at the same time with small amounts of money actually making a real difference to real families right throughout the world. I certainly encourage members to have a look at this program if they are not fully au fait with it. Certainly, I refer them to the web site www.microcreditsummit.org. There is a lot of information there, a lot of which I have been quoting from today, which does show that a lot can be done that is very effective for a lot of families out there in the real world.2249909:48:0022499Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—In the Courier-Mail on Saturday morning sensational allegations about systemic vote rorting by ALP supporters in the electorate of Fisher in the 1987 election were outlined. Of course, it would be unrealistic to assume that such vote rorting occurred only in Fisher, and one must now ask whether marginal Labor members elected throughout the country since 1987 were in fact validly elected.Given the fact that the 1987, 1990 and 1993 elections were won by a handful of votes in a handful of seats throughout the nation, one must now realistically ask whether Labor did genuinely win those particular elections. It is interesting that Barry Large, the ALP campaign director in Fisher, said that only three people—Michael Lavarch; Barry Large; and Peter Beattie, then ALP state secretary, now Queensland Premier—were confident that Michael Lavarch would win that particular seat.We have to really ask: how was Mr Beattie aware of this particular fact? The question is: was he aware of fraudulent behaviour and did he condone it? In his autobiography In the Arena, Premier Beattie recounted his own preselection campaign for the outer Brisbane electorate of Redlands in 1986, and he observed then, first-hand, fraudulent ALP enrolments. He stated:Door knocking the area was an interesting experience. One female party member was not at home when I called on her at the vacant allotment where she purportedly lived. To my not particularly great surprise she later voted in the preselection.For the information of the chamber, Mr Beattie lost this preselection to the now member for Bowman, Mr Sciacca.Other reports of rorting by Labor in federal seats have emerged. Dr Watson recounted what happened in the electorate of Forde, now ably represented by the member present, Mrs Elson, during the 1987 election. We also have to look at the election of Cheryl Kernot in the electorate of Dickson in the poll which took place in 1998. Much of what is now Dickson was, in 1987, in the electorate of Fisher. Michael Lavarch, the victor of the rorted poll in 1987, was campaign director for Cheryl Kernot. Cheryl Kernot fell over the line by a little over 100 votes. The same enthusiastic Labor supporters, who were guilty of rorting the Fisher roll in 1987, obviously would still be present in the geographic area which became Dickson. The question the people of Queensland are now entitled to ask is: was Cheryl Kernot validly elected as the member for Dickson in 1998? The Labor Party moralised throughout the 1980s. It took the moral high ground in the area of electoral matters while, at the same time, its supporters were systematically rorting and rigging elections at federal and state levels. The people of Queensland demand answers. Premier Beattie should widen the terms of reference of the Shepherdson inquiry. What has Premier Beattie got to hide?2250009:51:0022500Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Claims about employment growth in this country by members on the government benches are nothing more than codswallop. The actual employment growth and the type of employment created tell a very different story. Between 1990 and 1999, the number of employed people rose by just 923,500. But, at 71.4 per cent, the overwhelming growth was in precarious casual employment. That is right: 659,800 jobs—71.4 per cent of the total jobs created—were in casual precarious labour. In fact, the total number of casual employees in Australia is not far from topping two million.Full-time permanent employment has been the traditional entry point for Australian workers to acquire a living wage, standardised working times and conditions of employment to allow for sickness and annual leave. Protection for casual employees in Australia follows the American trend of basically no protection whatsoever rather than the European trend of legislation to provide protection. Perhaps this explains why, in the USA, high wage earners have fallen from 28 per cent to 21 per cent, middle wage earners have fallen from 37 per cent to 16 per cent and low wage earners have grown from 35 per cent to 63 per cent. That is the real labour market this government is creating in Australia.Precarious casual employment has doubled from 13.3 per cent in 1982 to 26.4 per cent in 1999. At the same time as casual employment has grown, full-time employment has been decreasing. In 1990, full-time permanent employment was 73.5 per cent. It has now dropped to 63.4 per cent. Under this government precarious casual employment appears to be replacing full-time permanent employment. As far as part-time employment is concerned, casual employment stands at a quite remarkable figure of 64.6 per cent. For those employees working less than 14 hours a week, casual employment is as high as 81.8 per cent.All of that information was taken from the July 1999 ABS figures. What is often overlooked with casual employment is the distinction between short-term casuals—the true casuals—and the long-term casuals. These employees are increasingly being used by employers as permanent employees but are deprived—`cheated' would be a more accurate term—of the standard rights, benefits and entitlements associated with permanency. These trends are extremely worrying. With no security and no loyalty given, why would loyalty and productivity be returned?Some in the world have gone mad on investing their hard-earned cash in the American economy. Unfortunately, as far as employment is concerned, low skills, low wages and casual employment dominate the labour market in the USA and, unfortunately, Australia is mirroring those trends.2250009:54:0022500Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Last week in a ceremony in Deakin, I was very pleased to be able to recognise the achievements of 10 senior Australians as part of the Commonwealth's Recognition Awards for Senior Australians. This follows on from the very successful program last year, the International Year of Older Persons.In the Deakin community, we have a great deal of team spirit engendered by so many people who contribute their time and energy—often anonymously—with very little recognition sought. My only regret is that I was restricted to 10 awards, because I could have easily recognised more people. Reading through the deeds and achievements of our nominees is a truly touching and humbling experience. I know that all of us, as members of parliament, whenever we present awards such as this, do feel very humbled by the self-sacrifice that these people give, with very little recognition or financial inducement involved. Their efforts in helping others encourage us to do more for our fellow human beings and to put the interests of others alongside, if not ahead of, our own. Last week's winners are all examples of people who have not let age, setbacks or other commitments stand in the way of service to others. Typical of such people, many of them want no public recognition, but it is there anyway among the people and organisations that they have helped along the way. The real value of recognising the deeds of the 10 Deakin recipients is not an inducement for them to keep contributing, as I mentioned to them last week, but to provide inspiration to others so that they may follow in their footsteps. Altruism is the glue that binds our society together and, without the sacrifice of these people and their contribution, certainly our society and our community will be the poorer. It is their selfless service which makes our national fabric what it is to day.I would like to mention the 10 awardees in the time that I have available. Mr Laurie Gillham has 50 years of voluntary work in a number of organisations—the Anti-Cancer Council, as a JP, and as an Aussie Rules umpire. In fact, he tells me he even umpired a VFL grand final many years ago. He is still contributing out in the community. Ken Gibbons has been a president of Croydon RSL for many years and has also contributed to community soccer, Little Athletics and marching girls, along with various other organisations. Brenda Crawshaw was recognised for her work over 26 years with various community organisations—War Widows, senior citizens and aged care services. William Cahill was recognised for his work with St Vincent de Paul, emergency relief and veterans groups. Richard Gray was recognised for his work with the Lions Club, in particular the Lions Club drugs program and various other youth programs. Frank Mosca was recognised for his work with the Italian elderly citizens and also with various hospice work. Elaine `Marj' Ord was recognised for her Meals on Wheels and senior citizens work, as well as her work with the Uniting Church. Jacqueline Ramage was recognised for her senior citizens work over 25 years. Victor Stewart was recognised for his work with the Baptist Church and op shop. And finally, Maria Virgona for work with the Italian senior citizens organisation. (Time expired)2250109:57:0022501Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Accentuating the rich-poor divide has been a hallmark of failed governments in the past. It is the hallmark of this government, as it was the hallmark of the Periclean aristocracy in Ancient Greece who failed to survive because of their accentuation of the rich-poor divide. Emperor Honorius in Ancient Rome in 410 AD decided to play with his prize poultry instead of looking after his constituents, and King Alaric and a hundred thousand Visigoths came down from the hills and took over Rome. Louis XVI was into potted orange trees and collecting ancient clocks, and of course that was the end of that oligarchy in France. Tsar Nicholas was another one. And, of course, David Kemp and John Howard are another pair, and they will be a failed government and oligarchy. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills22502R1165Consideration resumed from 6 November.2250209:58:0022502Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 2000 amends the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and has been necessitated by the High Court's decision in R v. Hughes. That decision casts doubt on certain investigatory functions of the National Crime Authority and the purpose of this bill is to remedy that situation.Honourable members would be aware that the National Crime Authority was established in 1984 as a national crime body, exercising both state and Commonwealth functions. It is the only law enforcement agency in Australia whose investigations are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. The authority is not confined to only investigating breaches of Commonwealth law but is empowered to investigate offences against both Commonwealth and state laws. It is a truly national body and its existence reflects the seriousness with which the Commonwealth and the states view organised crime.The decision of the High Court in the Hughes case questions the capacity of Commonwealth authorities to exercise powers and functions conferred on them by state legislation in situations where the power or function is coupled with a duty and there is no federal head of power to support that power, function or duty. The bill amends the National Crime Authority Act to ensure that when the authority is investigating offences there is a connection with a federal head of power in as many situations as possible. This is achieved by expanding the scope of Commonwealth references to include offences against a law of a state where that state offence has a federal aspect. In addition, when the authority is under a duty to investigate a matter pursuant to a state reference, then those references will be limited to matters that have a federal aspect. The bill also amends the act to clarify that the authority does not have any duty or obligation under Commonwealth law to perform any function, or exercise any power conferred by a state law, unless there is a federal aspect. The amendments will ensure that the important work of the National Crime Authority in investigating organised crime is not jeopardised by the decision of the High Court in the Hughes case. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum and a correction to the explanatory memorandum.10:01:0022502Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The opposition supports the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 2000, not with any great enthusiasm but in recognition that it is probably necessary to pursue a course of the kind that the government is undertaking—at least as a short-term measure to deal with the implications of the decision in R v. Hughes. The National Crime Authority Act, however, really requires a more extensive visitation. The government has had a number of reports from the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, which have made quite substantial recommendations going to the manner in which the jurisdiction of the National Crime Authority should be exercised and its powers. The government has been more than a little remiss in responding to those recommendations. It is odd that we have had a series of technical amendments to the act necessitated by court decisions which have been brought before this parliament much more quickly than the substantive recommendations of that parliamentary committee.That said, however, plainly once the decision in Hughes was made, there was a need to look at whether or not the National Crime Authority legislation required change. Nothing in Hughes is explicit on this point, but there are a number of comments by judges that imply that in future cases there may be some difficulties with the way in which the act is currently constructed and the way in which the various powers given to the authority from state and federal legislation intersect. So this legislation, which looks at some of the implications that flow from the reasoning of the judges in Hughes, seeks to anticipate possible challenges in the future, rather than dealing with them at a later stage when the court would otherwise perhaps have to grapple with those issues. I imagine it would be fairly predictable that lawyers, aware of the reasoning of the judges in Hughes, would seek to utilise that reasoning in future challenges against some of the determinations of the authority. As I say, nothing in Hughes itself explicitly diminishes or cuts down any of the conduct or reasoning or decisions of the National Crime Authority to date, but I suppose it does flash an amber warning light. This has required the government to act and the government has done so. This bill clarifies the powers, functions and duties of the National Crime Authority. It seeks to address the points made, the weaknesses identified and the signals given in the High Court's decision in the Hughes case. It inserts definitions of terms, including `federal aspect' and `federally relevant activity'. It amends the definition of other terms, including `original reference' and `related offences'. It provides for the purpose of the National Crime Authority Act when a state offence will have a federal aspect. The bill rewrites section 55A of the National Crime Authority Act to address in detail the ability of the National Crime Authority, a member or a judge of the Federal Court, to exercise powers, functions and duties.The proposed section 55A, which is the subject of this bill, does the following: provides legislative consent to conferral of certain powers, functions and duties under state law; lists the functions, duties and powers that may be conferred and clarifies that they are to be of the same kind as those conferred on the National Crime Authority, a member or a judge of the Federal Court by a Commonwealth act; specifies that a state law, to effectively confer the function of investigating a matter by the National Crime Authority, a member or a judge of the Federal Court, requires a referral by a state minister in writing, must have the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee of the National Crime Authority and must have the consent of the Commonwealth minister; limits the functions, duties and powers that may be conferred on the National Crime Authority, a member or a judge of the Federal Court by state law—by providing for regulations to be made to specify those to be excluded; clarifies that a state law cannot purport to confer a duty that is in contravention of any constitutional doctrine; indicates that the Commonwealth does not intend to `cover the field' in relation to the investigation of state offences that have a federal aspect—it provides for a state law to operate concurrently with the National Crime Authority Act if it is capable of doing so, and clarifies that the National Crime Authority can hold concurrent duties and will be able to exercise either state or Commonwealth powers; and it makes a deeming provision to safeguard the duties, powers and functions conferred immediately before the bill is enacted so that they are regarded as the same kind as those conferred in the bill.The attempt in this is pretty straightforward: it is to put the National Crime Authority back in exactly the same place as it was before the decision in the Hughes case—and I have briefings in relation to this from the minister's advisers. They tell me that it does not make any substantive change to the scope of the National Crime Authority Act, and that is my understanding of the matter. The drafting is quite technical, and it does, unfortunately, make the bill less accessible to the reader than it was previously. But, after discussion, I suspect that little could be done to have a more elegant drafting than that which has been put forward. At a later stage, when time permits, there may be a better opportunity to find a more elegant way of expressing some of these more complex ideas, but at present I think we are just going to have to live with the fact that the legislation now is rather more complex than one would wish. Nonetheless, the end result of all the complexity was to try to get the bill back to where it was before, without all the additional verbiage. So, given that we are confronted with the result in Hughes and the implications that may flow from that, there is not much else the government could have done and not much else the opposition can do now other than to support it. We do think that there is a need for the Attorney to have the senior law officers of the Solicitor-General engage quite significantly in debate in the High Court about the narrowness of some of the decisions that are being made. The Wakim case is a good example, and Hughes is another, of a fairly narrow reading of the Constitution in areas where, as parliaments across this nation, we have sought to find better ways of cooperative federalism.I have spoken previously of the advantage there would be in the Attorney and his Solicitor-General making the argument with the court directly, in a polite but engaging way, as only the first law officers of the Commonwealth could, by personal appearances in these matters to make sure the Commonwealth's position is clearly understood—but that is for a future date. This circumstance having arisen, we support the amendments and think the government has done as well as it could in the circumstances and in the time frame available. I know that the member for Moreton, who is about to speak, would join with me in urging the minister to have regard to the need to also address the substantive recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Crime Authority. That is far too long overdue and is a matter upon which the opposition is becoming increasingly, and quite rightly, critical.10:11:0022504Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Denison has not represented me in an unfair way. In addressing the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 2000, I also am very conscious of the important role of parliamentary committees and the fact that, as subcommittees of the entire parliament, there tends to be a great deal of detailed work and assessment, discussion and, over time, expertise developed in various areas. Whilst I have a general lifelong philosophy that if it is good for lawyers it must be bad for everybody else, I do suspect—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPCK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Port Adelaide concurs with that as well. I would not expect the member for Denison to. I think generally it is important that we try to make our laws as simple, straightforward and realistic as possible. One of the great frustrations I have, as a much avowed non-lawyer, is that there is a sluggish response to what the bad guys do. That criminals are always going to be several steps ahead of the law I guess is a matter of great tradition over many hundreds of years. Civil societies tend to consider their responses over a long period of time because, by their very nature, they want to get those responses right and correct in certainly most, if not all, cases. Whilst I agree that the views of the statutory committee need to be responded to by the government, I also accept that time should be taken to get that response correct. In regard to this matter, we have here yet another example of the bad guys getting a decision out of the High Court which, in fact, perverts what most people would have expected the National Crime Authority to do. The NCA is an organisation that had certain powers conferred on it in 1984 to exercise both Commonwealth and state functions. It is the only law enforcement agency in this country which has no jurisdictional boundaries that limit its activities and yet it is forever being caught up on jurisdictional matters. It is forever facing the prospect of difficulties, although not as far as cooperation with the various police services is concerned because in fact over the last 16 years the cooperation levels have reached an impressive level. To digress, Queensland police officers say to me individually how proud they are to work with the NCA and the Australian Federal Police to get good results in the drug law enforcement area, for instance. If you look at some of the great results that Queensland police officers have been involved in in recent years—the world record amphetamine factory which was smashed in Fortitude Valley comes to mind, with over half a million dollars worth of makings for amphetamines seized—you can certainly see that Queensland police are doing what they say. But the real jurisdictional battle tends to be with the various state laws and the inconsistency of those laws.I know that the ongoing work of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is lifelong work. The committee itself will outlive the various Attorneys who aspire to some kind of national consistency to laws. In fact, the only fairly consistent set of laws—although various states wanted to chop and change them around—actually existing in this country relates to gun ownership, while there are no really consistent laws relating to big-ticket crimes like drugs or, in general, organised crime. I said to the House a couple of years ago that the Laws of Australia journal, looking at the manslaughter charge, highlighted exactly what I am saying. I stated at that time—and I do not believe it has changed:In Queensland, the maximum punishment is life imprisonment with hard labour. This is under the Queensland criminal code. In the Northern Territory and South Australia, it is life imprisonment. In New South Wales, it is 25 years. In Tasmania, it is 20 years. It is 20 years in the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia ...RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—It is 21 in Tasmania.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Denison tells me it is 21 in Tasmania—for manslaughter. And it is 15 years in Victoria.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It could be, in effect, only eight or nine years with remission.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration is quite correct: the remission laws also allow people who commit manslaughter under the various criminal codes to evade custody, evade the penalty, in a much shorter time than even the laws themselves prescribe in their very all over the place way. Of course, for victims of crime the penalty goes on forever.So we have a real problem in this nation that needs to be addressed. The National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 2000 highlights another one of those fiddling around the edges things that occur from time to time, but we have just got to stop fiddling around. We have actually got to look at the concept of a Commonwealth criminal code which covers a variety of these offences. We have got to look at having something that says, `If the state jurisdiction does not get you in an adequate way, perhaps we can prosecute you under a Commonwealth jurisdiction.' We have got to not necessarily duplicate but rather ensure that the overlap is adequate to make certain that Australian citizens are well satisfied that their legal system—particularly the court system, set parameters by the political system—is responding to their concerns. We offer a choice under that kind of approach to prosecutors, in the same way as workers have a choice as far as which particular industrial relations laws they would like to sign up to.In that regard there is some need to actually penalise the bad guys. In our activities as law-makers we, as well as those who judge the law, need to look at a Commonwealth criminal code concept and to stop this fiddling around. The jurisdictional concept of turfdom, where various state authorities stamp out their various jurisdictions and do not want to budge, always wanting to have something different, is something which is only advantaging the criminal. It is certainly not advantaging the honest and decent citizens of this country. I would look forward to a further and really concentrated discussion amongst the various attorneys-general. Quite frankly, if they cannot get on with the job that the federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, is trying to achieve in his execution of his duties, the various state governments need to look closely at the personalities of their attorneys-general as they currently stand. In the same vein, we have got to look also at matters relating to our electoral laws, the basis on which we elect people, and particularly at what is occurring in the Queensland context at the moment, where, essentially, organised crime activity has been taking place over the last couple of decades by the Australian Labor Party in the way that it is rorting the enrolments in Queensland. I would view the National Crime Authority as having a potential interest in this matter. After all, the NCA, under its 1984 act, is well capable of looking into these matters. There is an organised outcome and an organised benefit, and if that does not fit the standard of an organised crime, then I do not know what does. The member for Fisher is somebody who directly felt the effects of how organised that particular criminal activity was.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—A victim of it all.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—A victim of crime the member for Fisher is, as a result of the 1987 election, and I suspect those constituents that he represented well in those days, as he does these days, also felt like victims of crime over a period of years. As to what sort of remission the people involved in this get, time will judge—although the person elected to replace the member for Fisher picked up about a million dollars worth of benefits over the period of time that he was a member of parliament.I suspect that the National Crime Authority and the important work that it does needs to be more fully supported, and it needs to be supported by a form of jurisdictional broadening. Whilst the act says there is no jurisdictional limit on it, it is nevertheless being restricted in its activities by the various state laws of this country and by the inadequacy and inconsistency of those laws. Whilst this bill is supported by both sides of the chamber, I urge the opposition to also get behind my suggestion that we need to get on with the real job and stop fiddling around the edges with various changes that we try to do in a piecemeal way as far as criminal activities in this country are concerned. As I said, the real advantage is on the side of the bad guys. It is not on the side of the average Australian, as it is not on the side of the average Queenslander, who is suffering as a result of electoral fraud at the moment and finding that their one vote does not mean as much as the 14 votes that a 16-year-old girl cast in Fisher in 1987.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—She thought it was exciting.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—She did think it was exciting. So we need to now realise that key institutions—the parliament, the courts, and I have always talked about the media—need to be enforced and need to get on with the job of doing what the people expect, and that is to punish the wrongdoers and assist the people who do the right thing. I commend this bill to the House.10:21:0022506Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—I thank the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Moreton for participating in the debate on the National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 2000. We were also very pleased to be able to provide a personal briefing to the member for Denison and I acknowledge the fact that he has recognised that he received that particular briefing.The National Crime Authority is vital to Australia's efforts to combat organised crime and is Australia's only true national law enforcement body whose actions are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. It is therefore imperative that any doubt about the scope of the operations that the National Crime Authority can undertake be put beyond dispute as soon as possible. The amendments proposed by this bill are designed to provide a valid basis for the broadest possible range of NCA investigations by giving federal coverage to what it does. The bill does not otherwise change the nature of the NCA's activities or powers. The NCA will continue to act pursuant to references. The respective roles of the Commonwealth and the states in the management of the NCA will not be changed. The matters the NCA will be empowered to investigate will continue to be decided by agreement among Commonwealth and state ministers. The honourable member for Denison in his speech referred to a number of technical amendments contained in this particular bill, but he said that there was no thorough review of the legislation. I suspect the honourable member for Denison would admit that short-term fixes have been essential to overcome the constitutional issues raised as a result of the decision of the High Court of Australia in Hughes. Legislation to implement the recommendations from the third evaluation of the NCA by the committee is being developed. As honourable members opposite would appreciate, given the cooperative nature of this scheme, consultation with the states is under way, and consultation among the states and the Commonwealth does take a considerable amount of time. I believe the member for Moreton in his contribution also referred to the need for a review to take place. The bill will enhance the operational effectiveness of the National Crime Authority. The member for Denison also suggested that the decision in Hughes inferred that there would be possible future challenges to the NCA Act, and raised the question that this bill will not be a complete fix. While the Hughes decision creates some doubt about the conferral of duties under Commonwealth-state cooperative legislative schemes on Commonwealth authorities, given the fact that the NCA's primary reason for existence is to combat organised crime that impacts on a national level, virtually all of its activities will, in practice, have a federal aspect. The investigation of major areas of organised crime activity by the National Crime Authority, such as drug importation and tax evasion, will not be affected. The investigation of state offences that are incidental to the investigation of an offence under Commonwealth laws will also be able to continue. For example, the investigation of a murder that is incidental to international or interstate drug smuggling would not be affected. Some very narrow areas of activity that could potentially be investigated by the National Crime Authority under state law might not have a federal aspect. In these areas the National Crime Authority will continue to exercise its powers and functions under state law. I am pleased to reassure the honourable member for Denison of that particular fact.In his speech the honourable member for Moreton referred to the need for a Commonwealth criminal code. I am particularly pleased to report that the Commonwealth and states are working on a model criminal code. The current shadow minister was responsible for the enactment of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. The minister, Senator Vanstone, just last week took through the parliament the most significant chapter of the code, the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999. This is the biggest step forward yet in achieving a nationally consistent criminal code.The honourable member for Denison also suggested that there was a need for the Attorney-General and senior law officers to discuss the narrow interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court. The Attorney-General, like the shadow minister, appreciates the importance of having an independent judiciary. The suggestion of approaching the court does raise some issues of extraordinary sensitivity, and I suspect that the member for Denison would concede that. However, I will reassure the shadow minister that I will draw his remarks to the attention of the office of the Attorney-General for consideration by the Attorney-General in this way. The honourable member for Moreton also referred to allegations of systemic electoral rorting and fraud by the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. Wearing the hat that I do in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will confine myself to saying that a number of allegations about electoral fraud have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The Australian Federal Police are assessing the information provided and, in accordance with normal practice, it would not be appropriate to comment any further on those investigations at this stage.An effective and efficient NCA is essential to Australia's fight against organised crime and it is essential that the National Crime Authority is able to act in the broadest possible range of matters. The legislation before the chamber will ensure that the NCA is able to continue its investigatory function to the fullest extent possible. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.22508 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:28:0022508Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I will not take up much of the committee's time. I simply wish to clarify the point I was making with respect to the Attorney. I was seeking to convey a view that increasingly has been confirmed over recent times—that is, there would be a significant advantage if the Attorney-General, as first law officer of the Commonwealth, took it as a proper and constant course to appear as counsel in the High Court on the most important constitutional matters which go to the distribution of powers within the federal system. I do so because these are fundamental issues regarding the governance of our country. The constitutional division of powers in the Australian democratic system comprises three components of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. At the highest level of the judiciary is the High Court of Australia, with the concomitant power to interpret and give effect to the Constitution. There have been a number of instances over recent times when the relationship and the functioning of federalism and the effective governance of the Commonwealth in the largest sense have been before the High Court. No person can better make the case from the point of view of the other components of that constitutional structure—the executive and the legislature—than the first law officer, the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. I am not urging that there should be some ex cathedra, out-of-court process, but I am urging that the Attorney, and future Attorneys, have regard to this fact that there needs to be a dialogue between those institutions of governance. That can only be best effected if the actual representative of the executive appears before the court; and, incidentally, because the executive is responsible to the parliament, and the Attorney himself is responsible to the parliament, also conveys the views of the parliamentary process to the court and draws the court's attention to the relationships and how they ought to evolve in that constitutional framework.We have moved forward a long way since 1901. But that vital, fundamental point still remains—that a functioning federal system does involve all three levels of government and we cannot have a dialogue of the deaf. No matter how well respected silk may be when it is briefed in relation to these matters, or appointed to be Solicitor-General, none carries the same weight as an Attorney-General or minister of the Crown appearing, representing directly the other levels of government before the High Court of Australia on those fundamental matters. That is the point that I was seeking to make. I think the parliamentary secretary may have misunderstood. Perhaps I did not explain it adequately in the earlier remarks that I made. 10:32:0022509Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Denison. The Commonwealth does, as he knows from his own ministerial experience, engage very experienced and competent counsel, including the Solicitor-General, currently David Bennett QC, and the Chief General Counsel, Henry Burmester QC, in key cases. These counsel are closely and extensively briefed by the Attorney-General's Department, which consults closely with the office of the Attorney. The Attorney-General has himself appeared before the High Court on occasions. Of course, that is appropriate. The Attorney-General is one of the most competent lawyers in the land and certainly the most able lawyer in the parliament. As I mentioned before, I will, however, undertake to convey the thoughts of the honourable member for Denison to the office of the Attorney-General for his consideration.Bill agreed to.Bill reported to the House without amendment.Bills22509R115222509Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.10:34:0022509O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 provides a range of amendments to improve access by farmers and their families to one of the federal government's key programs for delivering income support to the farm sector. Whilst the changes proposed in this bill might appear to be minor, they are part of an ongoing process of amendment of legislation to ensure that an effective income support safety net exists for farmers who, for various reasons, find themselves financially unviable and who are faced with making extremely difficult decisions about their future in the sector. The opposition supports the legislation and will assist its passage through the parliament.In the last three decades we have witnessed an era of unprecedented structural change in Australian agriculture—changes that are not unique to the Australian experience; nevertheless they are profound. In most Western economies throughout the world, and ones with which Australia compares itself, we have seen a relative decline in agriculture as a direct employer and in the number of farm establishments. Of course, the sector still remains the most important generator of income and wealth in many regional communities. Both direct employment in the sector and the number of farms have declined, but the output of the sector has increased dramatically. The forces that have brought about this structural change are diverse. For example, the introduction of new technologies and ways of farming have seen great leaps in agricultural productivity without the associated generation of rural employment.One particular characteristic of Australian agriculture that is unique is the export orientation of many of its industries and their dependence on access to overseas markets. We can list some of the big industries in the rural sector—sugar, grains, wool, beef and, indeed, now wine—and note that all of these industries are heavily dependent on access to overseas markets, and the prices that they receive in those markets, which in turn affects the survival of enterprises and farm families in the sector.I note that the honourable member for Barker has joined us in the chamber. I mentioned the wine industry. Last night we enjoyed the output of the wine industry and heard of its spectacular growth. I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am a bit worse for wear and tear today. If at times I wander off the path, it is merely a matter of my mind wandering to those good times that we had last night in the company of the honourable member for Barker and other honourable members who enjoyed the hospitality of the Australian wine industry last night. 3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Good wines never do you any harm.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I say to the honourable member for Port Adelaide that there are perhaps some members walking around today who might testify to the opposite point of view. Anyway, a good time was had by all. Another factor that generates enormous pressure on particular areas of Australia and on particular agricultural sectors is the extreme climatic conditions that have to be endured by farmers in particular areas. Drought and flood are part and parcel of the rural landscape and the operating environment for Australian farmers. Recently, the government instituted a package of assistance for sugar farmers, mainly based in Queensland. Over the past three years floods and cyclones have devastated that industry and many farmers have gone further into debt in order to try and stay afloat. Farm enterprises have real difficulty staying afloat; they endure not only the harsh climatic conditions but also a low price for their product on the world market.In areas such as Mackay we see the emergence of diseases that are associated with those climatic conditions, and they are putting increasing pressure on producers there. It all adds to this very difficult pressure of adjustment that farmers have had to endure, not only in that region but also in others. Also, there are decisions of government that bring pressures on the sector. We have had an example of that recently with the decision of the federal government to deregulate the dairy industry in Australia. The federal government did claim that deregulation was all the states' work and that basically the states were responsible for that deregulation, but it is a matter of the public record that the federal government in that instance, in that industry, made it quite plain that no federal assistance would flow to the industry if it did not deregulate. That was a virtual gun at the head of the industry. It is a regionally based industry throughout Australia and it has dimensions where a deregulated environment would deliver particular advantage to certain regions to the disadvantage of others. What was negotiated there was one of the biggest industry packages that this country has ever seen. You would expect that, if a government was going to contemplate assisting the development of a package of that size, it would have got in quite early and dirtied its hands in developing a plan for the industry, but this government did not. It knew that commercial pressures were building in the industry for deregulation, yet it stood back and pushed the responsibility for developing that industry package onto the industry itself. And without delivering unfair criticism to the dairy industry itself, the particular set of measures that the federal government put in place was sorely deficient as far as addressing the long-term needs of the industry were concerned. We ought to make some points here about that particular package. There was very little federal money in it at all. When we look at the package of $1.7 billion, we see that it was basically financed by a consumer levy, a transfer from consumers to the dairy industry. The federal government went out into the political marketplace trumpeting what it had done for the dairy industry when in fact it had put very little federal money into the package at all. And the package in its totality was quite deficient. It did not set a framework for growth in this industry, it did not set targets or directions, and it did not provide the strategic assistance one normally finds in industry plans to develop a particular industry over a discrete period of time.I mentioned the wine industry as a classic example of growth in the Australian context. We heard at the pioneer wine industry dinner last night about the possible growth prospects for that industry, in both the short term and the longer term. It has been an extraordinary growth in the wine industry and it is one that is regionally based and a generator of employment and wealth in regional areas. As honourable members would know, this was an industry that set about planning its growth and its future back in the 1980s, and it received very strong support from the then Labor government to develop its research and development capacity to lever its way into the international marketplace. It received very strong support for the plan it devised for its own growth, and I think the goals that were set in that plan have certainly exceeded everybody's expectations—to the nation's benefit and to the benefit of the rural communities in which this industry now occupies such a special place.I think it is a classic example of what can be done by governments when, in cooperation with industry, they set targets and plans and structure their assistance to encourage that industry to achieve those goals. Sadly, we did not see that in the case of the dairy industry with this government. As I said, there was very little federal money in a $1.7 billion package—the biggest industry package ever delivered to any Australian industry in one throw—and of course now the dairy industry is paying a very heavy price for that deregulated environment in particular areas of Australia.Dairying in Australia has in recent years been a very profitable business, but ABARE reports that, whilst most dairy farms have been profitable, the bottom 25 per cent of dairy farms lost an average of $46,000 per annum over the three years prior to deregulation. If we look at that statistic alone, we can see that there would be a very high incidence of poverty in that bottom 25 per cent of dairy farmers who are clinging on in their industry.The post-deregulation price that most farms receive for market milk has fallen between 20c and 30c a litre. Farmers in the Riverina, for example, have seen the price they receive for market milk slashed from 53c per litre before deregulation down to 31c per litre. This has largely been driven by the fierce competition among milk processors for lucrative contracts to supply the major supermarket chains.The impact of this has been particularly profound on regions which previously received a high proportion of their income from the sale of market milk. For example, in my neck of the woods in Victoria, regions that have traditionally supplied the manufacturing milk sector have fared much better. If we take just one example of the impact of this deregulation on farm families and regions, it has been estimated that the gross milk income of the Taree region will fall by around $27 million this year as a result of deregulation. That is a substantial reduction in income that is flowing to a particular region as a result of the decision of governments to deregulate.I guess my starting proposition here is that, across the sector, there are some what we would call `positive influences' for structural change, there are others that are quite negative, and all this adds up to a production and marketing environment that is quite precarious for many rural producers. In summary, we have seen massive technological change in the sector which has brought its own structural changes. We have seen industries become more dependent on overseas markets. Many of those markets are quite corrupted, and the prices received in those marketplaces do not vary positively too much over time.We have also seen flood, disease and other climatic conditions exert tremendous pressure on the sector and, of course, I have just mentioned the impact of government decisions. When we roll all these together, it is a precarious production environment for many Australian farmers, and many of them are finding it increasingly difficult to earn a living in the sector. The program that is the subject of our scrutiny here today is designed to put a welfare net under those with particular problems—to ensure that farmers who find themselves in poverty are given the opportunity to consider their futures, either in or out of agriculture. These amendments are the product of a review of the Farm Family Restart Scheme that was completed by the government in March 2000. The review suggested that in the administration of the Farm Family Restart Scheme further consideration should be given to a number of issues. The recommendations of the review included the following: having an end of year or an end of income period follow-up to assess the results of the professional advice that had been given through the scheme, actions planned or undertaken and changes to viability; extending the time given to sell the farm; having provisions so that farmers who lose control of a property to a bank would still be eligible for the re-establishment grant; and raising the asset limit for the re-establishment grant, which would assist older farmers who may want to leave farming and who are likely to have accumulated more assets than younger farmers. Of course, there was a very important recommendation that farmers deciding to leave farming should be encouraged to access career training and education, and this should be actively promoted in the scheme. The main provisions of this bill pick up on some of those recommendations that came through in that review. The bill increases the net assets threshold for re-establishment grants from $90,000 to $100,000. The maximum grant that would be payable to farmers with net assets of $100,000 or less is $45,000. The grant is phased down by $2 for every $3 in assets above $100,000 and will cease to be payable when assets exceed $167,500. The sector has been agitating for this amendment for quite some time. It might seem to be a modest amendment, but it is an improvement on the previous situation. I think we need to keep in mind when we structure these improvements that the sector walks a fine line between meeting the special needs of farmers in Australian agriculture and the equity demands of the community. There are many people who look on these programs in a very unsympathetic way. They simply say that—and if I can put it in its crudest form—there are too many whingers in the sector and they get too many breaks from the government. We know that there are a lot of people out there who look at these problems in a very shallow way and what we ask them to do is to go beneath that sort of rhetoric and look at the historical circumstances that many farmers might find themselves in. We are getting to a situation in Australian agriculture where we do have a very large cohort of people in what you would call the retirement age zone. There are many farmers who came to their chosen profession and, whilst they are very skilful farmers and have a broad range of native skills that have been accumulated over time, they do not have formal education and training qualifications. It is not easy when a farmer, who has been there for 35 years, is confronted with the fact that they are running an unviable enterprise and may have to leave that enterprise or make a decision about their future in the sector. So this provision is an improvement on what previously existed, and we commend the government for making this amendment.In this bill, the government also extends the deadline for applications for help under the scheme until 30 November 2003. Currently, the deadline is 30 November 2001. Of course, payments will be made until 30 November 2004. Members might recall that, when the government rebadged a lot of Labor programs and basically put them under the triple A package banner, particular provision was made down the line for a rather strict deadline on this scheme for the take-up especially of the re-establishment grants. The government went into the sector beating the drum on this, saying that the scheme was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that there would be a take-up of 10,000 in the time frame. That was what they were aiming for. Of course, it was a spectacular failure. The government tried to hide that fact but in estimates committees in recent years we have certainly teased out the failure of government policy in this area. One of the reasons for that failure was the criteria that were being employed that severely restricted access by farmers to the scheme. This bill also changes the name of the scheme to Farm Help—Supporting Australian Families. It is merely changing the name of the scheme to fit in with, I guess, the Prime Minister's new-found concern for Australian families, be they in urban or rural environments. We are not going to quibble over the name change. If the government seeks to fit that within its framework of general policies and badge it so, we do not object. The legislation also includes a provision for a retraining grant of $3,500, and this would be an area that we would support. I think there has to be some care in the administration of this provision. We certainly do not want money thrown at this area without some outcomes for the people concerned. We will be watching this area fairly closely.The bill also offers voluntary case management to clients and it also includes provision for a ministerial discretion in the provision of a re-establishment grant to be available where exceptional circumstances have led to a delay of more than 12 months in the sale of farm assets. That is an interesting provision that gives the minister discretion in these matters but, once again, experience shows that, in situations dealing with farmers, in the disposal of assets and the decisions that have to be made to leave a farm, some degree of flexibility is required. I guess here the government is trying to balance the demands of the community for equity and strict accountability with some flexibility, and we would support them in that.I will, in the remaining time available to me, just raise some matters that were raised with the minister by a Mr Russell Jolly of the Eastern Eyre Rural Counselling Service in Cleve in South Australia. A one-page letter was sent to the minister. As we know, we have yet to get a commitment from the government on the financial future of rural counselling services. I know that is a particular issue of concern to the member for Bass who is going to speak in this debate and it is a matter of concern to farmers, their communities and the counselling service personnel all over Australia. I think we all know the benefit of this scheme to this sector and the sooner the government makes a funding commitment, the sooner the service will be able to retain personnel who have built up a considerable expertise in servicing the needs of farm families.In that letter to the minister, Mr Jolly made several suggestions for improving the Farm Family Restart Scheme. There are basically three points:Farm Family restart scheme allowance recipients do not have access to the bereavement allowance.Income support is limited to 12 months. When poor seasons are experienced in an area, quite often farms do not sell, despite a genuine attempt by the owner to sell. This is farcical and the scheme needs to be amended to enable people in this situation to continue to receive support—I think Mr Jolly would be pleased that the government has picked up that notion of flexibility in its legislation by providing the minister with the capacity to make decisions on that. Mr Jolly continued his letter:Income and Asset tests for income support. Farmers when planning for retirement and succession often transfer farming properties to discretionary family trusts. It is common in these situations for the farmer to have made a loan to the trust. Policy guidelines issued to Centrelink clearly sets out that loans made to trusts are exempt assets if the loan to the trust is considered essential to the ongoing operation of the farm and likewise if the land has been gifted.However under the income test both the loan to the trust and the value of the land transferred by way of a gift within the past 5 years, are subject to deeming. This has the effect of reducing or completely depriving the farmer of assistance. Why exempt an asset if it is going to be caught up in the income test? I believe that this is not in the spirit of the scheme and as a matter of urgency the Act needs to be amended!Mr Jolly has made suggestions for the improvement of the scheme. I mention this because people often write to government but feel their voices are not heard. We on this side of the House have disputes with the government on a whole range of legislative matters, but on issues such as this, where I think the government has a genuine intent to improve the scheme, we are certainly not going to quibble. I raise Mr Jolly's letter because it is important for people to know that when they write in, either to government or to an opposition, there is some attempt to take account of the points that are being raised in their letters towards improving programs and schemes that are administered by the government.I reiterate that we will be supporting the amendments that are being made in this bill. They introduce a degree of flexibility to the arrangements and to the criteria that govern the administration of these schemes, and at the end of the day they will be of benefit to farmers. So we support the legislation. I hope that by going my full time here, 30 minutes, I have not caused the honourable member for Barker to nod off. He is probably next in the debate, and having been at the pioneer wine industry dinner last night, along with the honourable member for Maribyrnong and a few others, I acknowledge that it is hard yakka today. I wish him well. Some left earlier than others! (Time expired)11:04:0022514Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I did enjoy tasting some wines last night with the member for Corio, but I hasten to add that, while I may wander around like he did, it will not be due to the overimbibing that happened last night. It is interesting that two of the most lovely red wines that we enjoyed as guests of the wine industry came from my electorate. So I am very proud to continue to support the wine industry in my electorate. The fact that the wine industry has grown so much over the last 10 years has certainly helped a lot of people in my electorate who have had to leave their farm. They have found jobs in an industry where they are still involved in an agricultural sense. The marketplace has worked itself out very well: people have not had to go through the social security system but have found quite satisfying jobs in the agricultural industry, although often of a different type.It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000. This bill amends the Farm Household Support Act 1992 in order to: change the name of the Farm Family Restart Scheme to Farm Help—Supporting Families through Change; extend the Farm Help income support application deadline to 30 November 2003—an extra two years—and the income support closing date to 30 November 2004, 12 months later; introduce a mandatory requirement for farmers assessed as non-viable to develop activity plans. I will speak on that much later. The bill also makes consequential amendments to other legislation to give effect to the name change. It will be useful to give some background to the bill. Farm poverty in Australia is not new. It has been a feature of Australian agriculture for many years. Farm poverty was drawn to the attention of the wider community during the severe drought experienced by much of eastern Australia in the early 1990s. Although there has been poverty among farming families for many years, the drought both exacerbated and highlighted the problem, particularly drawing attention to the inadequacies of the standard social security safety net for farm families.Other factors such as drought and poor commodity prices, which vary with each commodity in severity and the length of time, have also had a marked effect on farm poverty in Australia. Wool, for example, has been in the doldrums for some 10 years. Beef, not that long ago, was in the doldrums itself for a couple of years. Who can forget, during 1998, the hard times that the pork producers of Australia were going through. As the honourable member for Corio commented, dairying will cause some problems in the restructuring process. Last night we had the privilege of enjoying some of the best wines in Australia—some of us in small quantities, I might add—but some years ago the wine industry had a vine pull because of overproduction. In the last decade the wine industry put a lot more emphasis on the export of their product, and they have been very successful. Some 10 years ago they were exporting only $100 million worth of wine a year; this year we have already exported $1.5 billion worth of wine. That is just one of the amazing statistics of the wine industry, which with its success provides a lot of jobs and wealth for the whole area and in rural and regional areas in many parts of Australia. Certainly, in my electorate, there are areas that have expanded quite a lot—Padthaway, Naracoorte, Wrattonbully, Mount Benson, Langhorne Creek, Southern Vales and even a lot of the boutique wineries in the southern Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. Five years ago many of them did not exist but, as a result of the success of the industry, that health and vitality are certainly out there.I disagree with the member for Corio, however, who suggested that dairy deregulation was due to the federal government. Of course, that is a nonsense. Deregulation was done by the state legislatures; it is not federal legislation. We, as a federal government and as federal members, had two choices. We had the choice of doing nothing—which would have made the whole restructuring process a lot more painful: a lot more people would have left the industry and it certainly would not have given those that were in the industry the hope to plan and to make decisions for the future—or we could have taken the other decision, which was to actually work with the industry.I note that the member for Corio's neighbour, the honourable member for Corangamite, put in an enormous amount of work with the dairy industry to set up the restructuring package. We freely admit that it was the right thing for it not to be at the taxpayers' expense. It was a very soundly funded proposal, and it gives a lot of people in the dairy industry some hope for the future. It shows the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House. Their suggestion was that the government should come in and set targets for the dairy industry, whereas we actually believe that the dairy industry people should set their own targets and make up their own minds about where their industry is going.In recent years, governments have addressed the issue of farm poverty through a number of initiatives, including the drought relief payment, the Farm Household Support Scheme and, most recently, the Farm Family Restart Scheme. This bill proposes to introduce Farm Help, a program which renames the Farm Family Restart Scheme to better reflect its intention—which is, in the minister's words, `to provide support, addressing the individual needs of farming families, whether they choose to remain on the farm or exit agriculture'.The government announced in the 2000-01 budget context that it would be providing $111.2 million over four years to continue the Farm Family Restart Scheme in order to ensure that farm families in difficulties continue to have access to appropriate family support payments and other assistance. Enhancements to the program were announced later, including a retraining grant of $3,500 available to those farmers and their spouses who receive a re-establishment grant, case management of Farm Help clients—including the mandatory requirement that an activity plan be developed for farmers assessed as non-viable—and an increase of $10,000 in the net asset threshold for re-establishment grant recipients.Rural counselling services have played a very large part in helping those farmers make a decision on whether they can actually go on with their farming operation or whether it is best to leave the farm with dignity. In my own electorate of Barker, these rural counselling services work very well and have a very good success rate in helping people. Their funding has been increased this year, so I am not quite sure what the honourable member for Corio, the shadow minister, was talking about. Firstly, the unique nature of the family farm, which so closely combines business, household and lifestyle issues, can make the standard approaches to delivering income support quite different from the normal social security set-up. Secondly, the application of the assets test to benefits under Australia's social security system impacts on the family farm quite disproportionately because of the fact that they are often asset rich but cash poor. So we have addressed that issue. I thank the member for Corio for congratulating the government for taking that up. Thirdly, the Howard government has responded to drought and other events—for example, the drought relief payment provided relatively generous income support to farmers in designated areas.However, farmers in poverty outside those areas designated by the government to be in exceptional circumstances missed out. The Farm Family Restart Scheme was announced on 14 September 1997 as part of the government's integrated rural policy package entitled AgricultureAdvancing Australia. It was described there as the government's key program for delivering improved welfare support to the farm sector as well as providing adjustment assistance to farmers who wished to leave the land.The key features of the Family Farm Restart Scheme include income support at the Newstart allowance level, and this payment is available for a maximum period of 12 months, and recipients do not have to satisfy an activity test. But, as a government, we recognised that there was a need for an activity test and I think that has gained wide support from all around the government and the opposition.There was a review of the Farm Family Restart Scheme. In summary, it found that farmers in three states—Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—were more likely to participate in the scheme relative to the state's share of farming population, whilst farmers in my home state, South Australia, and in Western Australia were very low users of the scheme. At least 28 per cent of the clients had previously accessed exceptional circumstances relief payments. As I previously mentioned, drought and low commodity prices, because they contributed to the debt problems, were the most significant factors cited by farmers for accessing the scheme.The distribution of the income support recipients was: dairying, 26 per cent; sheep and wool, 23 per cent; and beef cattle, 23 per cent. Interestingly enough, 30 per cent of the income support recipients had farms of less than 100 hectares. There would hardly be what I would call a genuine farm in my whole electorate that is less than, say, 400 hectares, so I find it interesting that we have this figure of 30 per cent of recipients who had farms of less than 100 hectares. Then we came to what was happening with the re-establishment grant recipients. The distribution of these grants was: dairy cattle, 37 per cent; fruit and vegetables, 19 per cent; beef cattle, 14 per cent; and sheep wool, seven per cent. That last figure is interesting because wool has been in the doldrums for so long, yet only seven per cent have been receiving the grants. Interestingly enough, Victorian dairy farmers accounted for 82 per cent of the dairy farmer grant recipients and for 30 per cent of all re-establishment grants. Obviously Victorians were doing very well, and I do not knock that, but it just shows that the grants certainly seem to be pushed in some areas more than others.It was interesting that nearly three-quarters of farmers exiting their farms resided within the same postcode after leaving the farm, with almost half expecting re-employment in the agricultural industry. That proves what I was saying earlier in relation to the wine industry, where a lot of people still wanted to stay in the area. They had to leave the farm due to their circumstances, but they were able to remain where their families and friends were and find jobs elsewhere in the wine industry. So there were a lot of suggestions that came out of that review. Schedule 1 of this bill contains the many amendments to the Farm Household Support Act 1992 to give effect to the program's change of name from Farm Family Restart Scheme to Farm Help. This is done simply by omitting the word `Restart' wherever it occurs in the legislation and substituting `Farm Help'. Item 2 renames the Restart Advice Scheme, which is set up by delegated legislation made under section 52 of the principal act. The renamed Farm Help Advice Scheme will commence on the proclamation date. The effect of item 16—this is a fairly important part of the legislation—is to extend the deadline for Farm Help income support applications from 30 November 2001 to 30 November 2003, so we have given an extra two years of commitment to that. Of course, because that income support is paid for a period of up to 12 months, item 17 extends the Farm Help income support closing date to 30 November.This is a very important piece of legislation for Australia. Many farms have been in the same family for several generations, and this sort of heritage is so important to many farming families. It has been in many cases a quite heart-wrenching problem for families and, dare I say it, too many suicides have occurred because people have had to leave their farms and they have felt that they have let down their families and their children to come. This sort of help to either continue farming in a viable way or get them through that hard period can only be commended. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.11:20:0022517O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—Before I go to the content of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000, many people have mentioned the wine pioneers dinner last night, which I did not get to attend, but I could not let the comments about some of the finest wines in Australia go by without mentioning the high quality Tasmanian wines, particularly those produced in my own Tamar Valley region.848Secker, Patrick, MPMr Secker—Less than one per cent of Australia's production.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE—It is the niche, quality end of the market. Agriculture, dairying, fishing, food and beverages constitute a major part of the Tasmanian economy, namely one-third of gross state product and approximately 700,000 jobs. In 1997-98, it was estimated that the value of primary production to Tasmania was $931 million. Farmers make up approximately 8.5 per cent of the Tasmanian working population. The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to change the name of the Family Farm Restart Scheme to Farm Help, extend the family farm income support application deadline to 30 November 2003, and the Farm Help income support application closing date to 30 November 2004. It introduces a mandatory requirement for farmers assessed as non-viable to develop activity plans directed towards either returning the farm to a viable position or securing alternative employment for the farmer. It includes a provision for a retraining grant of $3,500, offers voluntary case management and includes provision for a ministerial discretion in the provision of a re-establishment grant to be available where exceptional circumstances have led to a delay of more than 12 months in the sale of farm assets.As the House would be aware, we fully intend to support this bill, which is the government's response to a review of the Farm Family Restart Scheme which was completed in March 2000 by AFFA. Overall, the Farm Family Restart Scheme has received industry support. However, there have been some concerns, I think members will agree, that the assets test has been a little restrictive. I would like to take a few moments to put this speech in a historical context. Whilst the Commonwealth of Australia has provided assistance for rural adjustment since the 1970s, the severe Australia-wide droughts of the early 1980s exacerbated and highlighted farm poverty. Introduced in 1985 through an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states, the Rural Adjustment Scheme's objective was to return to commercial viability those farms and farmers assessed as having sound prospects of commercial viability in the longer term. As well, the scheme provided assistance for farmers assessed as having no prospects of long-term commercial viability in order to leave the farm. The farm build-up provisions were designed to encourage amalgamation of properties that were too small to be economic under the conditions at the time. Assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement took the form of loans on terms and conditions that the state authority considered appropriate, or by an interest subsidy on loans through normal commercial sources. The scheme operated on a lender of last resort basis and was an important mechanism for facilitating the Australian rural industry's adjustment process. As well, household support had been included in the scheme to provide help for those farmers who were judged as being non-viable and had insufficient resources to meet their living expenses; in other words, assistance to alleviate conditions of personal and family hardship whilst farmers considered whether to adjust out of the farming industry.In the early 1990s, when severe drought once again affected a vast area of eastern Australia, the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and the Farm Household Support Amendment Act 1992 were introduced and tied to the structural adjustment policy of household support and re-establishment provisions. The key features of the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the Farm Household Support Scheme included: concentration on a single program which was to be administered by the state rural adjustment authorities; special interest subsidies of up to 100 per cent under a Commonwealth and state funding arrangement which provided additional support for farmers experiencing exceptional circumstances; support for farmers who were unable to access commercial `carry on' finance to meet their daily family requirements; and the capacity to cash out the balance of the nine-month farm household support grant as a lump sum if the sale of the farm occurred within the nine-month period.Interestingly, in a speech to this House on 15 October 1991, during the debate on the struggle that the farming industry was experiencing at that time, the then Deputy Leader of the National Party suggested that, if the Labor government really wanted to do something about the cost structure in rural and regional Australia, it should introduce a goods and services tax so that transport costs could be reduced for those people. However, many farmers, transport operators, business or shop owners from the north-east of Tasmania in my electorate of Bass, a traditionally rural area, do not agree with that prophetic statement. They have certainly not seen any reduction in transport costs since the introduction of the GST. In some instances, overall costs have risen to the extent that some businesses are now refusing to extend credit to farmers. They feel that, by Christmas time, having outlaid expenses for capital equipment for the farm, farmers will not have enough money to pay their accounts at the local shop. So the farmers have to find the cash up front for those goods and services. In fact, the costs have surged to the point where one dairy farmer told us that he had to sell the family vehicle to make ends meet, and he had the horrible experience of his children offering to sell their bikes in order to help the family cope better. Another family were forced to sell the business that had been in the family for generations because they were not able to adequately clothe or feed their children. These are not isolated instances, and I am sure that we could probably all recount similar stories of difficulties in farming life. A number of initiatives, such as the Drought Relief Payment, the Farm Hand appeal and, more recently, Agriculture—Advancing Australia, have been introduced to try to address the issue of farm poverty. Agriculture—Advancing Australia incorporates the Farm Family Restart Scheme that the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 proposes to amend. Announced on 14 September 1997, the Farm Family Restart Scheme was described as `the government's key program for delivering improved welfare support to the farm sector, as well as providing adjustment assistance to farmers who wished to leave the land'. The Rural Policy and Communications Division of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has managed, in conjunction with Centrelink and the states, the structural adjustment package elements of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, incorporating Farm Family Restart schemes. Administered by Centrelink, the Farm Family Restart Scheme replaced the re-establishment grants previously made available under the Rural Adjustment Scheme; converted the drought relief payments to the exceptional circumstances relief payments; introduced the Farm Managed Deposits Scheme; and encouraged older farmers to retire, have immediate access to the age pension and pass the family farm on to a younger generation.Amongst other provisions, the Farm Family Restart Scheme operates as a decision support system for farmers who consider leaving the industry by providing them with access to professional advice on their farm's future viability and on employment opportunities if they do choose to leave the farm. The key features include: income support at the Newstart allowance level—and this payment is available for a maximum period of 12 monthsrecipients do not have to satisfy an activity test and do not have to put the farm on the market in order to obtain that assistance; recipients have a binding obligation to obtain professional advice on the future viability of the business and career counselling where appropriate, and financial support is provided to help recipients meet that obligation; and access to a re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 on the sale of the farm.Set up under subsection 52A(1) of the Farm Household Support Act 1992, the purpose of the Restart Re-establishment Grant Scheme is to grant financial assistance to eligible farmers on the sale of their farms. The Restart Re-establishment Grant Scheme is a time-limited scheme and originally had a deadline for applications of 30 November 1999. In December 1999, the deadline for applications was extended to 30 June 2000. On 14 August 2000, the government tabled a further amendment to the re-establishment grants disallowable instrument—Restart Re-establishment Grant Scheme Amendment 2000 (No. 2)—which had the effect of extending the grant application deadline to 30 November 2000. For a farmer to be eligible for the re-establishment grant, they needed to finalise the sale of the farm within 12 months of applying for the grant or, if they received restart income support, within 12 months of ceasing income support. Farmers and their partners may have up to $100,000 in net assets and still qualify for the maximum grant of $45,000. The net assets threshold excludes household and personal effects up to a value of $10,000. The re-establishment grant is reduced by $2 for every $3 in assets above this threshold and is not payable at all if the assets of the sale are $167,500.At 30 June 1999, the Farm Family Restart Scheme provided 1,208 farm families with income support. In total, since the Farm Family Restart Scheme began in December 1997, 191 Tasmanian farm families have received income support. As at 30 September 2000, 41 Tasmanian farm families were receiving income support. During 1998-99, 172 farmers leaving agriculture were paid re-establishment grants. To date, 23 Tasmanian farm families have received these re-establishment grants. A total of $42.6 million of exceptional circumstances assistance was provided as well, with the drought affected Flinders Island area in my electorate of Bass being amongst the areas in receipt of the exceptional circumstances assistance. Farm Financial Counselling funded 98 counsellors across Australia to provide financial counselling services for farmers, small business operators and townspeople experiencing financial difficulties. In Tasmania, however, since 1 July 1998 only two financial counsellors have been engaged through the Rural Financial Counselling Service—a component of the Rural Communities Program. That situation will continue to 30 June 2001. At this stage, no funding has been provided in the forward estimates for financial counselling after 30 June 2001 whilst the government considers the future of the Rural Communities Program, including the rural financial counselling component. In a time of such change and disruption in the industry, this is a concern that we should not have to be dealing with, and I urge the minister to provide some security for rural counselling.It is surprising and concerning that the farmers in the Central Highlands of Tasmania—Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, I am sure you will be very familiar with that area—who have experienced the worst droughts in generations, failed to get exceptional circumstances payments in 1997, 1998 and 1999. They finally received some support this year after the tireless efforts of the industry and the Labor Party. As reported in the Tasmanian Country newspaper on 14 April this year, Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers senior Vice-President Scott Ashton-Jones said that the Derwent Valley and the Central Highlands community was `at the end of its tether and needed any help it could get'. According to the Farmers and Graziers senior vice-president, even though the area had a clear case of financial difficulty, feed shortage and low productivity, the National Rural Advisory Council representatives who had visited the region had refused to accept the region's need for federal government exceptional circumstances assistance. In referring to the Central Highlands and the Derwent Valley area of Tasmania, Scott Ashton-Jones said, `It appears that the exceptional circumstances assistance almost cannot work for a region like this.' He said, `It therefore ought to be reviewed.'The overall scheme has been reviewed. In 1999 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia commissioned the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies to undertake a mid-term review of the Farm Family Restart Scheme. The mid-term review's findings have been used to inform the changes proposed by this minister. Completed in March 2000, the review's purpose was to evaluate the whole of the program and its separate elements, report on the program's progress and to provide comment against key questions, such as: what have been the key outcomes of the program; how effective has the program as a whole, as well as its individual elements, been in delivering its key objectives; have the Farm Family Restart Scheme's elements brought about positive change for participating farmers; and what has the new provision of income support achieved for farmers? The review's findings included that at least 28 per cent of Farm Family Restart Scheme clients had previously accepted exceptional circumstances relief payment and that drought and low commodity prices, which contributed to debt problems, were the most significant factors the farmers cited for accessing the Farm Family Restart Scheme. The review found that 30 per cent of income support recipients had farms of less than 100 hectares, and that the distribution of income support recipients was dairy, 26 per cent; sheep-wool, 23 per cent; and beef cattle, 23 per cent. On the issue of re-establishment grant recipients, the average age of grant recipients was 44.7 years and they had farmed for an average of 19.3 years. One-third of grant recipients had an asset level of less than $50,000, two-thirds below $150,000, and younger farmers possessed fewer assets on average. Suggestions from the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies review included extending the time to sell the farm and that farmers deciding to leave farming should be encouraged to access career training and education, and advisers should promote that requirement more actively. For grant recipients, 70 per cent of farm enterprises were well below 200 hectares, with 43 per cent below 100. Existing farmers often said that their farm was too small to remain viable in the current market, and 71 per cent of farmers exiting farming resided within the same postcodes after leaving the farm, with almost half expecting re-employment in the agricultural industry. The review also found that farms in three states—Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—were more likely to participate in the Farm Family Restart Scheme relative to the state's share of farming population, while farmers in South Australia and Western Australia were very low users of the scheme. The overall impression gained by the Farm Family Restart Scheme review consultants was that many farmers simply do not want to leave farming. Whilst the Farm Help Program and the Farm Family Restart Scheme have explicitly been tied to structural adjustment policy because of the combination of household support with re-establishment provisions, the scheme does not separate farm and family, especially as household support payments are deducted from any subsequent re-establishment grants. Only 10 per cent of farmers who access the Farm Family Restart Scheme make a decision to leave the farm, whereas 90 per cent of Farm Family Restart Scheme clients consider the scheme as providing income support for the 12-month period or as a means of access to planning, counselling and management, and other professional assistance aimed at seeking advice on how to maintain and develop the farm, which may not have been affordable. The review reported that farmers enjoy their lifestyle and believe that their conditions will improve and that they have no identified alternative career to farming. The findings of the mid-term review of the Farm Family Restart Scheme have been used to inform changes as proposed by this bill. In the 2000-01 budget, the government announced it would provide $111.2 million over four years to continue the Farm Family Restart Scheme and subsequently included a retraining grant of $3,500, available to those farmers and their spouses who receive a re-establishment grant; case management to farm help clients, including the mandatory requirement that an activity plan be developed; and an increase of $10,000 in the net assets threshold for re-establishment grant recipients. I want to focus on just how strongly we support the retraining grant and the ability to offer voluntary case management. It will be interesting to see the manner of provision of this support, because obviously outcomes must match the intent.As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Labor will be supporting this bill. The government made election commitments and set targets which have not been taken up by the industry. I believe there had been an expectation by the government of a take-up of around 10,000, but that has not occurred. We are hopeful that the enhancement that this legislation provides will help struggling farmers with some more realistic and achievable options in a more supportive framework.11:36:0022521Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—As a member of parliament who has represented rural communities and farmers, in particular, over the last 13 years, I, like the member for Barker, a practising farmer, am fully aware of the difficulties that the farming community have to face over the years in trying to sustain themselves in an environment where their income could be described as below the poverty line.The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to assist those farming families that want to do something else. But before I talk on that issue, I would like to talk about some of the things that create problems for people on the land which certainly flow on to the businesses in the rural communities that rely on the viability and the economic boost that farmers are able to give them to survive. We often hear about what the elements do in destroying the livelihood of farmers. The elements cover many things. Fire is an example. When I was the state member for Burrinjuck I had occasion to experience and participate in assisting farmers in very bad fire situations. I saw the destruction of flocks which, in itself, was very destabilising and played on people's minds and created enormous stress for farming families. To undersand, one only has to see the devastation that is created by fire and the economic destruction of a person's livelihood and to see that person, even after the fire has gone through and the animals have been destroyed, buried and cleaned off the place, coming back into his home on a daily basis smelling of ash. One only has to see the mental and physical strain and the emotional breakdown of people who have just lost decades of their stud breeding stock as a result of fire to understand the circumstances that farmers, unfortunately on a seemingly regular basis, face year in and year out.It does not stop at fire. You can also see crop destruction as a result of frost or the oversupply of rain that we sometimes get. We always like to have rain—it is something that people never knock back—but it can come at the wrong time. As an example of what I am talking about, in the last few years the cherry crops in the area around Young have sustained damage from rain right at the time when the cherries are full of sugar and nearly exploding. The rain runs down the stalks of the cherries and splits the crop, downgrading the selling price and the quality of the cherries and creating an enormous financial impost on the growers.During my time in this place, we have seen a restructuring of the wool industry—in which, in my view, government should never have been involved at all—to the extent that there is some light at the end of the tunnel for producers to get more control of their own destiny and obtain better prices, because commodity prices are another factor which impact on the ability of people to survive. More recently, we have seen the issue of ovine Johne's disease. I have had people come to me who are destitute financially because of the bureaucratic way in which the issue of ovine Johne's disease has been handled, and it is a very heart-rending situation.We also have to consider that farmers and their families are surviving on very low incomes. The average income for a farmer in the last decade has been somewhere between $6,000 and $9,000 per annum, which is well below the poverty line and indicates the character of the people that they stay on and continue to farm in those sorts of debilitating times. That low income is further compounded, unfortunately, by the exiting of young people from the land—the traditional following of their fathers and their grandfathers. They can see the futility of working from daylight to dusk and getting very small return for their energies and that, in itself, has created a massive problem for the farming community. It is further compounded by the debilitating effect of the importation of produce from countries which have a disease that we do not have—and the latest one that I can comment on is the importation of apples from New Zealand with fire blight disease, which creates further pressure on producers and does not auger well for a positive approach to the livelihood that they have grown up with and endured all of their working livesand by the increase in the suicide rate because of the pressures on farmers and their families. The lack of income has affected their confidence in the community and their confidence in being able to pull themselves out of a situation. And they are placed under further pressure when the banks foreclose on them at a time when they are at their lowest ebb. As my parliamentary colleague the member for Barker said, we have an environment where farming communities are asset rich and cash poor. Because they are asset rich, the criteria for some of the schemes put up by government under the exceptional circumstances grants have been so stringent that the farmers have been unable to qualify. Moving back to the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000, the Farm Help Supporting Families through Change Program, formerly known as the Farm Family Restart Scheme, or FFRS, is the government's key program for delivering support to farm families facing those severe financial difficulties that I have just described. Farm Help is available to low income families who cannot borrow further against their assets and who wish to consider their future in the farm sector. Farm Help is a proven effective safety net for farm families if they fall into financial difficulties.The program helps farmers plan their future on or off the farm. Since the scheme began in December 1997, around 4,600 farm families have received income support. Around 4,700 professional and advice sessions have been attended and around 500 farm families have received re-establishment grants. If you think about that, you also have to reflect on the enormous contribution made by those people who are advising, counselling and consoling those people when they are going through that very difficult time.The assistance available through Farm Help is flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of each farm family. The program elements include up to 12 months income support at the Newstart allowance rate; professional advice—and that comes from rural counsellors in particular and all those other agencies which have the charter to assist people in difficult times on the land—to the value of $3,000 on a wide range of areas to suit individual needs, including financial, legal, business, career or personal advice; and a re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 for those farmers who decide to leave farming. That is very important, because sometimes farmers can be very good at what they do but, because of poor advice they receive from bank managers and sometimes accountants, they can invest their money in an endeavour to set up their future and suddenly find that that investment has been very bad. I can refer back to the problems centred around the Swiss franc borrowings not so long ago. I know of one family of brothers who had been on the family farm for decades and who lost everything. They came out of their situation with the family car—they lost their home, their property, everything. Re-establishment grants are essential to help get those people on their feet.The government has also provided funding in the 2001 budget to extend all elements of the Farm Help program to 30 November 2003 and for program enhancement. The program name has been changed from the Farm Family Restart Scheme to Farm Help to better reflect—and quite wisely so—the intention of the program, which aims to provide support addressing the individual needs of farming families whether they choose to remain on the farm or exit agriculture. The enhancements to the program are consistent with the findings of a comprehensive review of the FFRS, finalised in March 2000, which found that the program is having a positive impact on its client group. The program has played a major role in sustaining farm families in their day-to-day lives and providing them with the opportunity to consider their future.The review highlighted areas of the program that could be expanded and enhanced to build on the program's success to date. The enhancements to Farm Help include a retraining grant of $3,500, case management of Farm Help clients and an increase in the net assets threshold for re-establishment grant recipients. The retraining grant will be available to those farmers and their spouses who receive a re-establishment grant. The $3,500 retraining grant will focus on skill development through accredited training, including vocational training, to assist farmers and their spouses in finding alternate careers to farming. All Farm Help clients will be encouraged to participate in voluntary case management. This will involve development of an activity plan which will help provide farmers with a plan of action that is much more closely aligned with their individual needs and circumstances. The development and follow-up of activity plans will be compulsory for non-viable farmers, and so it should be. The net assets threshold for re-establishment grant recipients has been increased for receiving the maximum re-establishment grant from $90,000 to $100,000. This increases the total grant payable to those farmers with net assets of $100,000 from $38,333 to $45,000. The grant will be phased down by $2 for every $3 in assets above $100,000, and will cease to be payable when assets exceed $167,500. My personal view is that that should be extended further because, as has been said over and over again, the assets of farmers that are taken into account really do not give you a true picture of the position that these people find themselves in, not on an irregular basis. Certainly in my time, over the last 10 or 15 years in particular, I have seen some very heart-wrenching cases.The bill also includes amendments to reflect the extension of the Farm Help income support application deadline to 30 November 2003 from the current deadline of 30 November 2001, with payments being made until 30 November 2004. That in itself is an indication that the government understands the concerns and problems that are out there with regard to this system. An amendment is also required for the provision for mandatory activity plans to be developed for those farmers who are assessed as non-viable.As I said, as a person who represents rural people—and I know I can speak for all of my parliamentary colleagues who represent rural and regional Australia—it is very important that we understand that, if we are going to keep the wealth of this country in the hands of Australians, if we are going to ensure the economic viability of this country, we have to ensure that our agricultural people are encouraged to stay on the farm. With an ever increasing population, we are placing more and more pressure on broadacre farming activity because of the way in which people, through natural background issues, are moving more and more into rural communities. Rural communities in many areas, particularly the major regional centres, are expanding to the point where more and more pressure is placed on agricultural land. The only positive thing about that is that it gives those people who are disenchanted and demoralised by the frustrating repetition of being deprived of a means of income—particularly from what they produce—the chance to consider selling up, getting some money in their hands, paying off their debts and moving into something less stressful which will allow them to live a lot longer than many of them do under the present conditions. I would like to compliment the government on this initiative in terms of readjustment of the former Farm Family Restart Scheme through the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 and I know that there will be many grateful beneficiaries of this particular move by the government. I know that the issue of the pressure on farmers is felt in a bipartisan way by all of the members of this parliament, regardless of whether they come from metropolitan communities or from rural communities, and I commend this bill to the House. I thank the House for allowing me, through your auspices, Mr Deputy Speaker, and those of the Speaker, an opportunity to place on record my appreciation, on behalf of the people I represent, for this fine gesture from the government and from the parliament and, more specifically, for being given the opportunity to talk about many of the difficulties that these people face. These people do not know what a nine to five day is. They get up at dawn and sometimes work after dusk to try and eke out what can only be described as a level of existence in the way of remuneration that many of us would not even consider undertaking.11:53:0022524Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I too want to talk about the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000. Family farming is the backbone of Australia's rural industries, but many farmers are facing increased financial pressure due to the changing circumstances in their respective industries—and, indeed, sometimes in their regions. While farm poverty is not new, in recent years agricultural industries have been hit particularly hard by low commodity prices, crop diseases, adverse weather conditions and a myriad of other problems that have left farmers in severe financial difficulty. The Farm Help program, formerly known as the Farm Family Restart Scheme, is the government's key program for delivering support to farm families facing financial hardship. It is available to low income families who cannot borrow further against their assets and who wish to consider their future in the farm sector. Since the scheme began in December 1997, around 4,600 farm families have received income support, and around 4,700 professional advice sessions have been attended. On top of that, around 500 families have received re-establishment grants. The government announced in this year's budget that it would provide $111 million to extend the Farm Help program to 30 November 2003 and for program enhancements. The bill today includes amendments to reflect those enhancements. The various forms of assistance available through Farm Help are flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of each farm family. Elements of the program include income support at the Newstart allowance level, professional advice to the value of $3,000—and this can be financial, business, legal, professional or personal advice—and a re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 for farmers who decide to leave the industry.The enhancements to Farm Help include a retraining grant of $3,500, case management to Farm Help clients and an increase in the assets threshold for the re-establishment grant recipients, which means more farmers will be eligible for the grant. The $3,500 retraining grant will focus on skills development through accredited training, including vocational training to assist farmers and their spouses to find alternative careers to farming. The assets threshold for re-establishment grants has been increased from $90,000 to $100,000. As I said, this gives people greater opportunity to participate in the program. The grant is then phased out at $2 for every $3 in assets above $100,000. That effectively means you can go up to $167,500 before the whole thing cuts out.Further, all Farm Help clients will be encouraged to participate in voluntary case management. The new case management approach will help provide farmers with a plan for their future, either on or off the farm, which will be more suited to their individual needs and circumstances. Farmers will develop an individual plan with their Centrelink case manager, based on their financial viability and skills. The development and follow-up of activity plans will be compulsory for non-viable farmers. Although that might seem harsh in one sense, it is a way of keeping their focus on re-establishment. One of the big issues having a financial impact on farmers in the Wide Bay-Burnett area of Queensland—that takes in my electorate, that of my colleague the member for Wide Bay and a little bit of the electorate of Fairfax—is the number of drought declared properties. Drought declared properties in general have tripled in Queensland to more than 340 in the past couple of months. A third of those are in the Wide Bay-Burnett region. There are 55 drought declared properties in Eidsvold, 51 in Monto, five each in Biggenden and Mundubbera, and four in Gayndah. Those towns are not in my electorate—they are in the electorate of Wide Bay—but a lot of those towns focus on Bundaberg and Gladstone in my electorate. So anything that happens to those farming communities impacts very much on the social and economic life of the city of Bundaberg and the city of Gladstone. Of course, there will be many more that are in the same or similar circumstances that have not yet received drought declarations. If current weather conditions were to continue—although we have had good storms recently—we could see more of these.One agricultural industry that has had plenty of bad news over recent years is the sugar industry, which is vital to the economy in my electorate. Sustained low sugar prices have led to significant financial hardships for cane growers and for the communities that depend on them. It is not generally understood that sugar production pervades the whole community. You grow sugar; you then have teams of contract harvesters and even, these days, contract planters; you have sugar mills; you have the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations developing new types of cane; and you have engineering firms, supply firms and tertiary industries that float off the secondary industries, like refined sugar and rum production—tonight being Bundaberg Rum night. I mention that just in passing, of course. Then we have a port that sends the sugar out from the district to the wider world. Sugar goes right through the community, from the very basic farming level right through the economy of the town to the export level, and in its all-pervasive nature it is probably unlike any other crop. Although sugar prices have recently improved dramatically from around US5c a pound in March to almost US11c a pound in August, a significant proportion of the crop—in fact, nearly of all of last year's crop—is forward sold. So the price we are getting this year is the price we locked into last year, US5c a pound. The improvement to US11c a pound will be welcome in the new year, but only if we have the crop. The irony is that in the year to come, 2001, we are going to have a good price but it is doubtful whether we are going to have a crop.The sugar industry organisations estimate that, for every $1 of sugar income, an additional $3 of community wealth is generated in sugar growing areas of Australia. This is the point I was making before: if sugar is down, it affects the whole community. A major manufacturing company in my electorate, Austoft, which makes cane harvesters, recently announced that it would have to shed a third of its work force, some 90 to 100 jobs—which again illustrates the all-pervasiveness I was talking about. This decision has mainly stemmed from hard times at home and, to some extent, in the international market.The adverse conditions affecting the sugar industry in some areas have included damage to crops caused by cyclones and flooding. That is more so to the north of my area, in the Ingham to Innisfail area, but it is very important to my colleagues in the electorates of Kennedy and Leichhardt. There have been rust disease and rats in the Mackay area, bringing down the crop in some places as much as 30 or 40 per cent. That too impacts very badly on the profile.Because of these significant and unusual difficulties, the government developed a substantial assistance package for sugar farmers who have been significantly affected. The package, which was announced some weeks ago and obtained a lot of favourable comment in the rural press, has four key elements to it: family income support, interest rate subsidies for replanting, interest rate subsidies on new or existing loans and financial counselling assistance. With sugar there is not time to build up special counsellors, so industry members and other people who are in difficulties will be able to go to professional counsellors with a subsidy. Still the difficulty is this: we are going into a year where we have potentially a very good price, but have we got a crop? That is why the most significant part of that four-part package is the interest subsidy for replanting. Thankfully, after the storms we have had over recent weeks, that is now looking a bit brighter than it did before.This sugar package and the Farm Help program complement a range of government initiatives under the AgricultureAdvancing Australia program. The newest addition to the AAA package is the Farm Innovation Program. The two-year pilot will provide $18.2 million of initiatives to encourage the adoption of innovative practices, processes and production techniques in agricultural food, fishing and forestry industries—and in my electorate I have all three of those. The successful FarmBis program has been extended, with an additional $167½ million in Commonwealth funding over the next four years. More than 36,000 farmers have used this program to improve their skills in areas such as business management, marketing, quality control and sustainable farm practices.This is not mumbo-jumbo; it is very important. In addition to sugar there are a lot of small crops in my area. Quality is paramount—even down to the details of colour and size. If you are dealing with Asian markets, first, you have got to have quality and those subsets of quality like size, colour and shape; second, you have got to have quantity—you have got to be able to make an impact on a given market; and, third, you have got to have continuity. You cannot have a crop for just three weeks and say, `Sorry, fellas. We haven't got anything for the next 49 weeks of the year.' In my area, the farmers came together to form a company called the Burnett Food Alliance, which has recently been granted $200,000 to employ an export manager. They work together not only to improve quality, understand quantity requirements and have continuity of supply but to enhance each others' products. They go overseas and, while they are selling their own product, try to enhance the saleablity of the other products in the group. I am glad the government has been able to give that group another $200,000 to help them not only with their external marketing but also engage an export market development manager, who will assist them in penetrating overseas markets.Other assistance has been provided in the form of the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme. This scheme provides an opportunity for eligible, low income, pension aged farmers to retire from farming and gift their farms to the younger generation without affecting their age pension. This helps many families living in hardship because their farms cannot support more than one family. I will discuss the main eligibility criteria in a moment. This is a problem that is not readily seen in the community: mum and dad and perhaps two sons and their wives live on a farm and no-one is making enough money to live well. In many instances, they are earning less than pension level. But if dad or mum try to gift the farm to the children, they then become ineligible for a pension for five years. There are reasons for that—to stop farms being handed on in a cavalier manner. At the same time, it captures people in a poverty trap. You have got three families who cannot get off the farm. The young ones cannot go because they know they will eventually have to inherit the farm, and the older ones cannot go onto a pension because, under the old arrangements, by handing the farm on either as a lump sum or in quantities of more than $10,000 a year, they lose their eligibility for a pension.Under the new rules—they are not so new now; they have been in for a few years—firstly, the net value of a farm must be no more than $500,000. In fact, I would like to see that a bit higher. I would be more comfortable if that were $600,000 or $650,000. There are a lot of people in the poverty trap and, although $650,000 might sound a lot, I am not altogether sure that it is. When it is divided amongst three families, we are not talking about a lot of money. Secondly, retiring farmers must have owned their own property for at least 15 years or have been actively involved in farming for 20 years. Thirdly, the retiring farmer must have had an average income of less than the age pension rate in the previous three years—as I have said before, that quite often happens—and, fourthly, the next generation must have had active involvement in the farm for three years prior to the transfer. You often find that because, even if the son or daughter has a job in town, they actively work on the farm.Another important program assisting farmers is the Farm Management Deposit Scheme, which provides an effective tax linked financial risk management tool to help farmers with the uneven income stream common in agriculture. The scheme enables farmers to set aside pre-tax income in the good years to help them through the more difficult years. In other words, they are not taxed on the money they are putting aside in the good years. They can benefit from the interest on that, but they pay the tax in the year they liquidate the deposit and take it back into the farm. I think that that is a very fair system and it has been a long time coming. It existed back in the 1970s. I think it has been most welcomed by farmers. It encourages them to be more self sufficient by allowing them to put away funds in the good years that can be used in the more difficult years. It is estimated that, over the first four years of the new scheme, the benefit to farmers will be about $60 million. In recent years, governments have addressed the issue of farm poverty and financial difficulties through a number of initiatives, including drought relief payments, the Farm Household Support Scheme, and now the Farm Help program. The Farm Help program has proven itself an effective safety net for farming families who find themselves in serious financial difficulties. It is not made to purely encourage farmers to leave their farms, as only one in 10 farmers who access Farm Help make the decision to leave. For the 90 per cent of farmers accessing Farm Help, the scheme is seen as providing income support for 12 months or access to professional assistance, planning, management and counselling that an individual might not otherwise be able to afford. A mid-term review of the program found that the advice was sought to maintain and develop the farm, and income support was helping pay off debt and putting food on the table. It is important that we support our farming sector and help farmers, if they need to leave the industry, to leave with some dignity and, if they stay, to be able to hand on farms to younger people and to have those younger people supported by advice. I think this is a particularly good bill. It comes on the heels of a number of other initiatives by the government and I commend it to the chamber.12:12:0022528Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The key feature of this Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 is the expansion and the retitling of the popular Farm Family Restart Scheme. Farm HelpSupporting Families through Change, will expand on the outstanding performance of its predecessor in providing a viable alternative for those farming families battling away on low incomes. This new version will not only extend support payments under the scheme until November 2004 but also provide $3,500 for retraining to those farmers and their spouses who have already qualified for the $45,000 re-establishment grant. It includes a requirement that farmers deemed non-viable, and therefore eligible for assistance, compile activity plans for the future. But most significant for struggling farmers in my electorate of Parkes in western New South Wales—and there are some struggling and there are some very prosperous ones—is the provision for greater flexibility in the period during which farmers wishing to receive assistance must complete the sale of their property.Under the previous scheme, farmers were obliged to show their intent to embark on the off-farm assistance program by completing the sale of their holding within 12 months. Although the one-year time frame was responsible in spirit as a measure to prevent any misuse of funding support, the clause poorly served some farmers whose situation was in fact the most desperate. For some farmers in my region, years of falling commodity prices and a lack of income producing alternatives, interspersed with periodic drought, were the crippling influences—along with non-viable sized holdings—as efficiencies, international competitiveness and, therefore, price expectations changed. Obviously, these factors cannot be eliminated simply by change of owner. As a consequence, the market demand for these properties is pretty half-hearted, to say the least. Perhaps where misfortune and an element of mismanagement were to blame, a prospective buyer might be found within 12 months who could see that the operation could be resurrected. But the incompetent farmer was the first to disappear long years ago during years of prolonged and increasing financial hardship. Those that remain have been doing their best in a losing battle against changing markets and a local landscape suitable only, in some cases, for raising sheep, and that cannot be adapted to more lucrative products finding favour in recent times with global consumers.The chances of these farmers finding a party with sufficient capital who is willing to change places with the embattled owners or to invest in their unviable operation are scant at best. This shortcoming was identified by a rural counsellor operating in my electorate some time ago. I commend Cathy Sim from the Macquarie Rural Advisory Service for bringing it to my attention and to that of the minister. In these circumstances, under this new legislation, there will be scope for ministerial discretion in determining payment where the farm sale has not been completed within the allotted 12 months. With these changes, I am confident that the Farm Help package will provide support for farming families looking to make a fresh start, so that they can do so confidently and with a minimum of stress, upheaval and uncertainty. These initiatives have already been shown to be an effective safety net for farm families if they fall into financial difficulties by helping farmers to plan for their futures, whether that be on or off the farm. Since these initiatives began in December 1997, nearly 4,600 farm families have received income support. Nearly 4,700 professional advisory sessions have been attended and nearly 500 farm families have received re-establishment grants. Most importantly, Farm Help can be specifically modified to meet the requirement of each farm family situation. The program includes up to 12 months income support at the Newstart allowance rate, professional advice across a range of fields, including financial, legal, business, career or personal advice, and the re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 for those farmers who decide to leave farming altogether. The figure of $3,500 for retraining will provide the necessary skills through accredited training to equip farmers and their spouses for alternative careers outside agriculture. In an innovative step, the bill urges all Farm Help clients also to participate in the development of an activity plan which will help to provide them with a strategy that is tailored to their own particular circumstances. To indicate that this funding is anything but a handout to the rural sector, and instead comes with an obligation on the part of both parties, the development and follow-up of activity plans will be compulsory for non-viable farmers receiving full support. The net assets threshold for the maximum $45,000 re-establishment grants will also be increased from $90,000 to $100,000. This will effectively increase the total grant payable to those farmers with net assets of $100,000 from $38,333 to $45,000. The grant total will be phased down by $2 for every $3 in assets above $100,000 and the grant will cease to be payable when assets exceed $167,500.Unless my maths is wrong, this means that in the best case scenario, if a farm family acts quickly when they recognise that their equity is threatened, they can re-establish in town with up to about $167,000. An important point is that this grant and the rules surrounding it encourage consideration of this option and other options before equity is diminished to nothing. Importantly, it allows a farmer to leave the land with dignity intact. Further, it structures an approach to future opportunities which may otherwise be ignored in the trauma of the moment. Under this bill, the deadline for income support applications under the Farm Help scheme will be extended from 30 November 2001 to that day in 2003, while payments for recipients will continue until 30 November 2004. These proposed amendments will serve to enhance the scope and quality of this government's support for struggling farmers and their families and thereby assist communities across rural and regional Australia. For many towns in my electorate and in rural areas throughout the nation, the prospects of tomorrow are tied to the farm prosperity of today. While these towns continue to remain surrounded by embattled primary producers who themselves are unable to start afresh, the economic stagnation has profound effects. This is clearly evident in findings released this week by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics which noted the crucial link between farm spending in smaller towns and those towns' future. The report stated that any reduction in farmers' expenditure in small rural towns led to a direct and almost immediate population decline. The mantra is familiar to all of us who represent regional, rural and remote areas: lost jobs, lost opportunity, lost young people, lost services and, too often, lost souls. With such a far-reaching and comprehensive scheme as this, people who wish to exit their circumstances and yet remain economically secure to reinvest in their community can do so. By freeing up the logjam of farm families caught between low income existence and lack of alternatives, this scheme offers a great promise for regional economies as a whole. There is little doubt in my mind that, given a fresh start, the industrious men and women from the land will transfer their efforts to more lucrative pursuits in diverse career fields. Many have skills that, in the emotional decision making time, they do not even recognise. They have skills that with a little effort can translate into a job driving a bus or truck, welding, consulting, counselling or in any myriad of small business opportunities. By easing the transition from the farm to another lifestyle this government is recognising and moving to alleviate the suffering of those farmers who, often through no fault of their own, cannot generate sufficient income to provide for their families. In doing so, this government will have also directly encouraged the business activity and the economic diversity so dearly needed in our rural communities.12:21:0022530St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—This government has worked hard to support the viability of farm families during some of the most challenging times that the rural sector has faced. During the last 30 years we have seen some of the toughest droughts in history, interspersed with some of the worst floods. At times we have watched helplessly as crops have been devastated by frost, hail, disease, insect attack and storms. But these things are an accepted part of agriculture in this country and most of our rural producers struggle through, often against the odds, and reluctantly call on support from government only when conditions are extreme.My electorate of New England straddles the Great Dividing Range and includes many small communities and a few larger regional cities and centres. It produces some of the world's finest wool and is a renowned livestock grazing region for sheep and cattle. There are horticultural producers and a fledgling wine industry. These industries are vital to the prosperity of the communities and that makes it vital for the government to provide support in those times of need.That support goes much further than the farm families who receive it. It filters through to the regional economy and, while farmers accept the tough conditions in which they operate, they find it much harder to work within corrupted world markets for their produce. This is a massive problem and challenge and has caused significant hardship to the rural sector in this country. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer because the sheer scale of the forces at work simply dwarf the resources of Australia.For example, total support to agriculture in OECD countries in 1998 was $683 billion. Australia's total federal government budget last year was about $166 billion—about a quarter of the amount spent by other countries supporting their farmers. In some countries, levels of support account for over 80 per cent of total income for some commodities, and this means those farmers receive only 20 per cent of their income from the actual sale of their produce. It is not hard to realise the impact this has on Australian farmers who operate with virtually no subsidies whatsoever. It is also not hard to see why the government provides support for farm families during those important times of need.Under the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000, the Farm Help—Supporting Families through Change initiative is the government's key program for delivering income support to the farm sector. Farm Help is available to low income farm families who cannot borrow further against their assets and who wish to consider their future in the farm sector. Farm Help is a proven effective safety net for farm families if they fall into financial difficulties, and the program helps farmers plan their future on or off the farm. Since the scheme began in December 1997, nearly 4,600 farm families have received income support, nearly 4,700 professional advice sessions have been attended and nearly 500 farm families have received re-establishment grants. Assistance available through Farm Help is flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of each farm family.The program elements include up to 12 months income support at the Newstart allowance rate; professional advice to the value of $3,000 on a wide range of areas to suit individual needs, including financial, legal, business, career or personal advice; and a re-establishment grant of up to $45,000 for those farmers who do make that heart-wrenching decision to leave farming. The government provided funding in the 2000-01 budget to extend all elements of the Farm Help program to 30 November 2003 and for program enhancements.The enhancements to Farm Help include a retraining grant of $3,500, case management of Farm Help clients and an increase in the net assets threshold for re-establishment grant recipients. The retraining grant will be available to those farmers and their spouses who receive a re-establishment grant. The $3,500 retraining grant will focus on skilled development through accredited training, including vocational training, to assist farmers and their spouses in finding alternative careers to farming. All Farm Help clients will be encouraged to participate in voluntary case management. This will involve the development of an activity plan, which will help provide farmers with a plan of action that is much more closely aligned with their individual needs and circumstances. The development and follow-up of activity plans will be compulsory for non-viable farmers.The net assets threshold for re-establishment grant recipients, as we have heard here on many occasions today, has been increased for receiving the maximum re-establishment grant from $90,000 to $100,000. This increases the total grant payable to those farmers with net assets of $100,000 from $38,333 to $45,000. The grant will be phased down by $2 for every $3 in assets above $100,000 and the grant will cease to be payable when assets exceed $167,500. But there is no obligation under the Farm Help scheme for farmers to leave the industry. They can receive this assistance and remain on their properties. The improvements to Farm Help will provide eligible farmers with access to quality financial help and advice, irrespective of whether they stay on the land and improve their farming operations or leave to find new careers.The fact that rural farmers often suffer significant hardship can be hard for many urban people to understand. They can be further confused when some rural people are described as whingeing farmers who are never satisfied. This reveals a serious communications gulf between city and country, although this is not something new. About 100 years ago, Banjo Patterson and Henry Lawson once `fought' a running poetic battle about the merits and struggles of life in the bush. Farmers are often misunderstood because they are naturally cautious in their predictions about seasons, market prices and so on, because they have had their fingers burnt far too often over the years. I urge city people to look past the surface of stories about life on the land and try to understand the reasons that farmers are so passionate about their livelihoods. The simple reason for their ongoing commitment is they love it. They love the early mornings, with the fog low to the ground and their livestock quietly grazing in the distance. They love the fact there are no traffic jams down their dusty roads. They love their independence. Words cannot truly capture their love of the land. The closest I have heard is an extract from the poem My Country, by Dorothea Mackellar: Core of my heart, my country!Her pitiless blue sky,When sick at heart, around us,We see the cattle die—But then the grey clouds gather,And we can bless againThe drumming of an army,The steady, soaking rain.Core of my heart, my country!Land of the Rainbow Gold,For flood and fire and famine,She pays us back threefold;Over thirsty paddocks,Watch, after many days,The filmy veil of greennessThat thickens as we gaze.I love a sunburnt country,A land of sweeping plains,Of rugged mountain ranges,Of droughts and flooding rains;I love her far horizons,I love her jewel sea,Her beauty and her terrorThe wide brown land for me.I think it encapsulates all that we love about the country and people who live there. I am pleased that we have a minister who is very conscious of this, who is a man of the land himself and is be able to bring these sorts of bills to the parliament of Australia to help those who are so necessary and have contributed such a great amount to the building of Australia.12:30:0022532Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—First of all, I would like to thank the government and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and member for Wide Bay, who is in the Main Committee now, for what I regard as one of the major programs in rural Australia to target and assist families who are going through very hard times as circumstances force some farmers to review their position and, in some cases, leave the land.I have just returned as a member of a delegation to Hungary and Poland. During the few days we were there I was able to learn a little of the plight of some of the farming people in very small farm areas in Poland and Hungary who are heavily subsidised at the moment and who face enormous change in the future as they strive to enter the European Community. I wish those people and those nations well in addressing the needs of their farming families. Their pressures are, of course, different from ours.Just a few moments ago I attended briefly the White Wreath Association's laying of the wreath in the front of Parliament House. As members would know, it is an organisation that is designed to bring to the attention of the nation the serious problem of suicide in this nation. The fact that 3,000 people committed suicide in our nation last year is just beyond comprehension. It was very moving to be there, particularly because of the very sad loss of one of our colleagues in recent times. The other night I was at the annual meeting of the Violet Town Bush Nursing Hospital—Violet Town is south of Benalla and north of Euroa in Victoria. I was told by the chief executive of the Benalla hospital that in the last 12 months he had personally attended, I think he said, 17 funerals—I am not quite sure of the figure; I know I was shocked by it—in the Benalla region involving farming families who had been affected by the tragic problem of suicide.The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 will help families. I am sure it will assist families who are struggling with changes to farming in Australia, and I hope it will help avoid the tragic problem that I just spoke about. The legislation is an enhancement to one of the government's key programs. As a member of the government, I am proud to have been associated with developing a set of policies to help families who have been locked into farms where the income is not enough, the prospects are not good enough to perhaps continue, or where major changes need to be made. They are running at negative income; they are heavily borrowed and geared and struggling to pay the interest; and they are in the hands of the banks, virtually, as to what will happen. Their sole livelihood and the roof over their heads are in these holdings.Since 1997, the government has developed some very successful programs, with income support through the Newstart system and professional advice from skilled people—management consultants, lawyers, accountants and others—who can give advice to families who feel trapped and unable to make hard decisions because they are at a loss to know what to do. I would like at this stage to pay tribute to the excellent rural counsellors we have in Australia—I have some in my electorate of Indi—and to the volunteer and support committees which assist them in their very stressful job of counselling families on the land who are in crisis. In fact, in the last year or two nearly 4,700 professional advice sessions were given to farmers and their families across Australia.Features of the enhancement which this bill provides are to extend the range of assistance programs to farmers and families and to increase the total grant payable to farmers with net assets to $45,000. That is subject to an assets test, the upper limit of which is also being increased. Also, I am very pleased to see a retraining grant of $3,500, which is going to be made available on a case management basis, to assist the very talented people affected. In many cases they are farmers with great skills, learned from their fathers and grandfathers on the land, in vocational areas particularly, and with the ability to handle many emergencies and deal with problems that would almost blow your mind—you would not believe the difficulties that some of those families have been able to work their way through. I was very pleased to see the minister introduce a retraining grant. Those who, sadly, have to leave their farms have a great amount of talent and, given some focused retraining, they can quickly commence to make a major contribution to their families and to the nation, using those skills which in many cases they themselves have not recognised they have. I know that there are many owners of manufacturing businesses in my electorate who acknowledge the skill and the worth of people from the land who have come to work in the factories in the towns. Their reliability, their aptitude to change, their ability to work very hard and their loyalty are characteristics of farming people that we admire so much. They become very valuable employees in towns and cities where their skills and some retraining make them very productive members of the organisations they work for.On a positive note, I was very pleased to recently attend a function with my friend the member for Farrer, Tim Fischer, at beautiful Mount Buffalo. It was the launch of the alpine valley's new wine region. I mention it today because some of the people who are entering into the very exciting development of what is going to be some of the best cold wine produced in the world—I have no doubt about that—are actually farmers who have made the transition, with advice and assistance such as under this proposed program, from the production of tobacco in unviable circumstances. They have had the courage to make the change and have recognised that their skills as fantastic cultivators have made them ideal people to cultivate grapes and make wine. Many of them have an ethnic background of having been born, or their grandfathers having been born, in countries such as Italy. One of my friends is involved in a little winery, and his family is producing a wine using the label of his great-grandfather from northern Italy. It is a beautiful label and I recommend it. It was great to be at Mount Buffalo because the alpine valley's wine region personifies to me that out of adversity comes good. With assistance such as is available under this legislation many families can find their way through into a very exciting new phase in their lives and a very productive one for Australia as well. With those comments, I wish the bill a speedy passage through the parliament and thank the minister, the member for Wide Bay, for his great contribution in helping to develop these policies.12:35:0022534Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—in reply—In summing up, I thank those members who have made a contribution to the debate on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000. From what I can gather, all members have spoken with a degree of enthusiasm about the bill and are in support of the changes that are proposed to be made through this legislation. Those changes continue and enhance the farm household support arrangements, and that is appreciated by all members who have any understanding of the difficulties confronting some sectors of the rural communities at the present time.There were though, as often happens in a debate of this nature, some fairly wide ranging references to other matters of agricultural policy, and I think it would be appropriate for me to respond to a number of those concerns. The honourable member for Corio, in summing up the opposition's position on this legislation, referred to a number of matters, such as the future of rural counsellors. I can report to the Main Committee that the government has received a report of a review into the rural counselling service. I know that many members are receiving letters from local rural counsellors and their committees who are anxious to get some kind of indication as to what the future might be. The review report has identified some issues that are of some concern and that certainly need to be addressed, but the government is conscious of the fact that rural counsellors have played a very significant role in regional communities under stress. The administration of the program is pretty complex in that there is a whole range of different providers of services at a state and federal level and through a number of different programs, and these sorts of issues obviously need to be resolved. The funding for rural counsellors is secure until the end of this financial year, but they are obviously looking for an indication as to what might happen in the future. The government is turning its mind to those issues at the present time.The member for Corio raised some comments that were conveyed to him in a letter from a South Australian counsellor. The same counsellor wrote to me on these matters, so I assume that it is the same letter. The honourable member for Corio acknowledged that some of the issues raised by Mr Jolly in his letter have been addressed in this bill, particularly the issue in relation to the time to sell the farm to benefit from the provisions of this bill, but he also made some reference to the transfer of farms to family trusts and deemed income affecting entitlements. The member for Corio may not be aware that that issue was resolved several months ago, and I believe the concerns that he raised in that regard have been addressed. He also made reference to the fact that bereavement payments are not available under the farm household support arrangements. That is consistent with normal welfare arrangements, where recipients must be receiving benefits for 12 months before they are eligible for bereavement payments. There is no inconsistency between this legislation and the way in which we treat other people who are receiving assistance through our welfare arrangements. Two other issues of wider significance were raised. The member for Corio raised one when he returned to his old theme of dairy deregulation. He is seeking to blame everybody else but the Labor Party for what has happened to the dairy industry. His contention that somehow or other the federal government had driven dairy deregulation is utterly illogical. Whilst some of his state colleagues might be endeavouring to pursue that line to distract attention from their own performance in that regard, it is simply lacking any kind of factual basis. Those sorts of comments do not befit someone who aspires to the position of opposition spokesman on primary industry matters. The reality is that his criticism on these matters is entirely without foundation.Once again, the member for Corio returned to the theme that the Commonwealth was putting up no money for this package and that somehow or other the money was coming from thin air. The reality is that the Commonwealth has imposed a new tax to raise this money. It is a tax that is just as much a tax as GST, income tax, petrol tax or any of the others. So the Commonwealth has to accept the full consequences of raising a new tax, a special tax, to deliver an outcome. To suggest that somehow or other this is not a Commonwealth initiative is, I think, to ignore the facts. Yes, in the truest sense, it is not the government's money but, in a sense, governments have no money of their own from any taxation source. It all comes from the people. In this case, it is the consumers of milk who are paying to fund this very significant package.I would also like to make reference to the current situation facing dairy farmers. It is beyond dispute that dairy farmers, particularly in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, are facing a very difficult adjustment period. Ironically, because the world price for dairy products has improved and the Australian dollar is low, the gross income being earned by the dairy industry this year will be up substantially on last year's, but nearly all of that increase is in the states of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. That is offset by losses of incomes in those states that have been very heavily dependent upon the market milk sector for their incomes. That is where the major adjustment is occurring.The pain that dairy farmers in New South Wales and Queensland in particular are feeling is a direct consequence of the failure of the New South Wales and Queensland governments to provide any compensation whatsoever to the dairy farmers for their quotas, which were made valueless as a result of the states' decisions to deregulate the milk markets. The states took away the value of these quotas. In some instances, the money to buy these quotas had been paid to state governments, and yet they were made valueless and the state governments have provided absolutely no compensation. I think that that is utterly immoral, and the Labor Party should be embarrassed about the performance of their state colleagues in New South Wales and Queensland because of their complete unwillingness to address the crisis confronting the dairy producers in their states and their unwillingness to do anything to provide compensation for the affected producers.In some states they even want to charge stamp duty on the payments that are being received from the federal government—a demonstration of their utter immorality when addressing these sorts of issues. Only the Western Australian coalition government has provided a state based package to support the dairy farmers in that state. The problems in New South Wales and Queensland are infinitely worse than in any other states, and yet those two state governments are turning their backs on the plight of dairy farmers. The honourable member for Corio should spend his time talking to Mr Palaszczuk and Mr Amery about the shamefulness of their response and should make sure that the federal Labor Party applies whatever influence it can to deliver some kind of justice to the dairy farmers in those states. The Labor Party stands condemned because of what it has failed to do in the states where it had the capacity to influence the outcomes of the dairy deregulation. Yes, it has happened faster than the industry and many observers expected, but the prices that are being received by dairy producers in those states are about what the state ministers predicted. They knew it was going to happen and yet they turned their backs and did absolutely nothing to help them.The honourable member for Bass raised issues about the declaration of exceptional circumstances for the central highlands region of Tasmania. I agree with her that it took a very long time for that application to be processed and for the farmers to receive the benefits to which I believe they are entitled. But if she is looking to apportion blame for those delays then she again needs to talk to her state ALP colleagues in Tasmania. It was a classic case of bureaucratic incompetence that that particular application took so long to reach a just conclusion. The applications were exceptionally poorly put together by the Tasmanian government.When finally, with the help of federal officials, an application was put together that was half credible and the National Rural Advisory Council that considers these sorts of matters went to Tasmania and saw for themselves and immediately were impressed by the gravity of the situation and determined that there should be immediate action, we found that the application and the request put forward by the Tasmanian government was designed in such a way that, even after we had the application in place, hardly any farmers qualified; and so we had to go back a few weeks later and correct the errors that the Tasmanian government had made in that regard. Even just a month or two ago, the Tasmanian government came back to us and said, `Hey, we've got the boundaries wrong and we want to extend them and add another set of farms,' and that is a matter now that the National Rural Advisory Council has reported to me on.We have an incredible piece of appalling administration from the Tasmanian state government that, after all, is responsible for putting these applications forward. I think that the Commonwealth responded as quickly and as sympathetically as we possibly could. When I visited the area of the Central Highlands of Tasmania I have to say that I was taken aback by just how severe the drought was in those areas. No-one has an image of Tasmania looking the way those parts of Tasmania looked at the time. Fortunately they have had a bit of rain subsequently, but it looked liked a real moonscape, not the traditional lovely green picture of Tasmania that we are used to seeing. I think it is disappointing that the declaration could not have occurred earlier. Finally it has happened and the benefits are flowing to those farmers who are eligible, but it could have happened so much better if the state Labor government had taken the time and had been serious about putting together a proper application to meet the needs of those farmers.Returning to the substance of this bill, which I think all speakers have supported, the amendments in it make changes to reflect the government's commitment to rural and regional Australia. The Farm Help program provides a proven and effective safety net for farm families facing severe financial difficulties. The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 provides for enhancements to the Farm Help program. These enhancements include changing the program name from the Farm Family Restart Scheme to Farm Help—Supporting Families through Change. The change of name will help better identify the fact that this support is available even to farmers who are not proposing to leave the land and ensure that it better describes the sort of support that is available. The program deadline has been extended to 30 November 2003 and, as a part of the case management of Farm Help clients, there is the compulsory provision for the development of activity plans for those farmers who are assessed as non-viable. Further enhancement of the Farm Help program will be included in amendments to the Farm Household Support Act 1992 disallowable instruments. These enhancements include a retraining grant of $3,500 for those farmers who have received the re-establishment grant and the compulsory development of activity plans by non-viable farmers. The enhancements to the Farm Help program will be implemented upon proclamation of the act. I commend this legislation to the House. It will secure the future of this important government program at least until 30 November 2003.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.22537Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.12:53:0022537Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—by leave—I present the supplementary memorandum and I move government amendments Nos 1 to 4: (1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 17), after item 58, insert:58A Subsections 53(4) and 53A(8) (at the end of the definition of this Act)Add “, the farm help re-establishment grant scheme and the farm help advice scheme”.(2) Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 18), before item 20, insert:19A Subsection 23(1) (definition of Farm Household Support Act 1992)After “DEP scheme”, insert “, the farm help re-establishment grant scheme and the farm help advice scheme”.(3) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 16 (after line 18), at the end of the Part, add:6A Effect of sections 53 and 53ASubsections 53(4) and 53A(8) of the Farm Household Support Act 1992 are taken, for all purposes, to have effect as if the definition of this Act in each of those subsections had, throughout the period: (a) beginning on 1 December 1997; and (b) ending on the farm help scheme payment commencement day;included a reference to the restart advice scheme and the restart re-establishment grant scheme (within the meaning of the Farm Household Support Act 1992 as in force immediately before the farm help scheme payment commencement day).(4) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 17 (after line 21) at the end of the Part, add:7A Effect of certain definition in Social Security ActSubsection 23(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 is taken, for all purposes, to have effect as if the definition of Farm Household Support Act 1992 in that subsection had, throughout the period: (a) beginning on 1 December 1997; and (b) ending on the farm help scheme payment commencement day; included a reference to the restart advice scheme and the restart re-establishment grant scheme (within the meaning of the Farm Household Support Act 1992 as in force immediately before the farm help scheme payment commencement day).The government amendments to the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000 are required to address omissions occurring in the Farm Household Support Act 1992 and the Social Security Act 1991. These omissions came to light recently during the implementation of changes to the Farm Help—Supporting Families through Change Program. The amendments will provide for delegations to be made under the Farm Help advice scheme and the Farm Help Re-establishment Grants Scheme of the Farm Help program and will validate past delegations. The amendments will also provide for the review of decisions made under these schemes by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and will validate past SSAT reviews of decisions made under the schemes. I commend the amendments to the committee.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Main Committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing22539The following answers to questions were circulated:22539(Question No. 1175)117522539Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000: (1) What will be the total cost to the Office of Indigenous Policy (OIP) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax (2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by OIP. (3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found. (4) Will the Government be providing extra funding to OIP to cover these GST compliance costs. (5) Has OIP estimated the cost to Commonwealth funded Indigenous organisations for GST compliance; if so, what are the names of these organisations and what are their individual GST compliance costs. (6) Has OIP estimated the cost to non-Commonwealth funded Indigenous organisations for GST compliance; if so, what re the names of these organisations and what are their individual GST compliance costs. (7) Has OIP estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its areas of responsibility.22539Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Neither the Office of Indigenous Policy nor the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has incurred, or will incur, any costs in relation to the development of systems to ensure their compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax. Both OIP and CAR are administered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the department did not incur any direct costs in implementing its GST compliant system. Marginal staffing costs have been incurred in the administration of accounts payable. As the Office is not a funding organisation, it has not had cause to estimate the costs requested in parts (5) and (6) of question 1175.22539(Question No. 1181)118122539Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 2000: (1) What will be the total cost to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) for compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax. (2) What sum has been, or will be, spent in each budget year on GST compliance costs by CAR. (3) From which programs will the cost of this GST compliance be found. (4) Will the Government be providing extra funding to CAR to cover these GST compliance costs. (5) Has CAR estimated the full impact of the GST, including compliance costs, in its ares of responsibility.22539Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Neither the Office of Indigenous Policy nor the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has incurred, or will incur, any costs in relation to the development of systems to ensure their compliance with the Government's Goods and Services Tax. Both OIP and CAR are administered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the department did not incur any direct costs in implementing its GST compliant system. Marginal staffing costs have been incurred in the administration of accounts payable. As the Office is not a funding organisation, it has not had cause to estimate the costs requested in parts (5) and (6) of question 1175.22541(Question No. 1712)171222541Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: (1) Which individual recommendations of the Glenn Report tabled in 1995 relating to (a) The External Environment, (b) Vision for ADF Personnel 2005, (c) Principles of Personnel Policy Strategy, (d) Employment and Work Practices, including phased careers, staffing, flexible work practices and social justice, (e) Reward, Recognition and Entitlements, including an independent approach, rank, the pay system, allowances, accommodation and relocation, non-financial recognition and presentation, (f) Support for Members and Families, (g) The Reserves, (h) A Learning Organisation, (i) Setting the Balance - A New Management Style, (j) Strategic Links - The Personnel Process, (k) Industrial Relations in the ADF, (l) Supporting Personnel Management, (m) Change and Communication and (n) Major Challenges have been implemented, and when and how were they implemented. (2) Which specific recommendations have not been implemented. (3) Which of the recommendations not implemented are progressing and when and how are they are likely to be implemented. (4) Have any recommendations been rejected; if so, why.22541Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since the Glenn Report (Serving Australia) was tabled five years ago there have been a number of subsequent reviews - in particular the Defence Efficiency Review - that have affected the recommendations put forward in Serving Australia. As a result, many of the recommendations in Serving Australia have since been subsumed by later initiatives. It should also be noted that many recommendations in Serving Australia were general principles that did not require concrete action. These recommendations cannot be easily measured in terms of achievement or non-achievement. Notwithstanding, on 31 March 2000, the Defence Personnel Executive carried out an audit of Serving Australia to determine those recommendations that have been achieved, in progress or not achieved. This audit has been updated in order to provide the basis for the response to this parliamentary question. The results are presented as follows: (1) (a) to (n) Recommendations of Serving Australia that have been implemented are as follows:Chapter One - The External Environment.Recommendation: We recommend that the impact of future trends in the social, economic, organisational and industrial environments be noted and that these trends continue to be monitored.Implementation: The external environment continues to be monitored by the ADF - noting trends in the social, economic and industrial settings. In particular, a strategic planning and research section is now tasked with collecting information on issues that could impact on personnel management in the ADF.Chapter Two - Vision for ADF Personnel 2005.Recommendation: We recommend that the Defence Vision for ADF personnel be noted and that increased prominence be accorded Service valuesImplementation: Adherence to Defence values continues to be fundamental to the future of the ADF. The Defence Matters initiative has reinforced that `people matter' to Defence, and that Defence values underpin Defence's operations.Chapter Three - Principles of Personnel Policy Strategy. Recommendation: We recommend that the set of ten principles contained in this Chapter (Chapter 3) be adopted as the basis for ADF personnel policy strategy. Implementation: On 11 October 1995, the Chiefs of Staff Committee formally adopted the set of ten principles as the basis for ADF personnel policy strategy. These principles continue to inform ADF personnel management.Chapter Four - Employment and Work Practices.Recommendation: Completion Incentives and Resettlement Assistance replace a range of gratuities and bounties that currently exist.Implementation: A new incentive, titled the Medical and Dental Completion Bonus, was introduced in 1998. This completion incentive superseded the provisions for the payment of bounties and gratuities in these areas.Recommendation: Retention Bonuses be provided at the discretion of the Service Chiefs for the retention of a group of members critical to the operational effectiveness of the ADF.Implementation: Provision for the use of retention bonuses has been retained in ADF personnel policy. Nonetheless, the use of retention bonuses has been reduced, and they will in the future only be used in occupational groups that are critical to the operational capabilities of the ADF.Recommendation: The Return of Service Obligation be confined to those cases where members have been given significant training which makes them highly marketable.Implementation: Return of Service Obligations have been reviewed by each of the Services, and as a result, the number of cases where Return of Service Obligations will be applied has been reduced. New policy is under development reflecting these changes.Recommendation: A range of Flexible Work Practices be developed for the Regular and Reserve components of the ADF to apply as local circumstances dictate.Implementation: Part-Time Leave Without Pay for Permanent Members of the ADF, was introduced in early 1999. This policy has also facilitated the use of `job sharing' within the ADF. Variable Working Hours for ADF Members was introduced in early 1997 - this allows personnel, subject to the needs of the working environment, to negotiate their working arrangements. Temporary Home Located Work for ADF Members has also been introduced in order to allow personnel to undertake work from their home.Recommendation: Concomitant conditions of service packages be developed for Flexible Work Practices.Implementation: The policies described above include consideration of appropriate conditions of service packages for ADF flexible work practices.Recommendation: All ADF employment be discrimination free and be based on the requirements of the job and the capability of the member to do the task.Implementation: The ADF has a zero tolerance policy on discrimination. Since January 1998, the ADF has been operating a Defence Equity Advice line, and the Defence Equity Adviser Network has been in place nationally since January 1999. Equity and Diversity in the ADF was issued in February 2000.Recommendation: Job design and specifications and career management systems be reviewed to ensure that any unintentional discrimination against women is eradicated.Implementation: In 1998, a Workplace Equity and Diversity Plan was published to reduce discrimination against women in the workplace. The review of job specifications and the complete eradication of `unintentional discrimination' against women in the workplace is an ongoing task.Recommendation: Strategies be developed to encourage people from non-English speaking backgrounds to join the ADF.Implementation: Strategy for cultural diversity in recruiting drafted and sent to DFRO for comment in February 2000.Recommendation: Strategies be developed to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to join the ADF. Implementation: An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment Strategy Implementation Team was established in 1997 as part of the Defence Force Recruiting Office.Chapter Five - Reward, Recognition and Entitlements.Recommendation: The ADF not be bound to any other group for adjustments of pay and conditions, and that the circumstances dictate the approach to be followed.Implementation: This is an ongoing process. ADF pay and allowances are determined by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, and are subject to the same wage fixing principles that apply to the broader Australian workforce. While all movements are merit based and are structured around internal relatives, external comparators are used for benchmark purposes. Non-financial conditions of service are also set internally, but in some cases are linked with either APS conditions or directly with community standards. The methodology employed enables the ADF to maintain levels that are consistent with community movements, while at the same time recognising the uniqueness of military service.Recommendation: The existing rank structure be maintained but the rank be used selectively in organisations.Implementation: The rank structure of the ADF has been maintained.Recommendation: The `all of one company' approach in the context of pay be abandoned.Implementation: The 1995 Pay Structure Review created a pay-graded structure for enlisted personnel with seven pay groups for each rank level. The same structure, based on work value, for Warrant Officer Class One to Colonel (equivalents) will not be implemented until June 2003 - after review of the ADF officer structure.Recommendation: Competency based increments be applied to all salaries under the new pay system.Implementation: This has been partially achieved. Specialist officer structures have been or are being developed that will remunerate specialist officers for their competencies. Legal Officers introduced a specialist salary structure in February 2000, while structures for medical, dental and chaplaincy cases are currently being developed. Recommendation: Salary compression be dealt with in the work value examination.Implementation: The work value remuneration based structure prevents salary compression by establishing a 12 percent pay difference between each rank.Recommendation: Performance based pay only apply at the senior management levels and be similar to that applying in the Senior Executive Service of the APS.Implementation: This was achieved via the establishment of the Australian Workplace Agreement.Recommendation: The distinction between the entitlements of single and married members be removed and a decision on the Members Without Family review be finalised as soon as possible.Implementation: Introduction of the main elements is virtually completed. In 1996 a number of significant and beneficial changes were made to the relocation and housing assistance entitlements of members without dependants (MWOD), including access to full removals and storage at public expense, payment of Temporary Accommodation Allowance, increased rates of Disturbance Allowance and District Allowance, and other allowances. On 3 September 1998 a number of changes were made to the housing assistance available to MWOD, including the splitting of the Rations and Quarters charges, and replacement of Living Out Allowance and Living Out Away From Home Allowance with Rent Allowance (RA). On 7 January 1999, a utilities charge was introduced for MWOD occupying living in accommodation (LIA). On 8 July 1999, separate charges for Levels 1 to 5 LIA were introduced. Between July 1999 and July 2004, LIA charges will be progressively increased in annual increments, with full charges achieved in July 2004. From 6 January 2000, MWOD owning a home in their posting locality became ineligible for housing assistance. From 25 May 2000, members without dependants for whom only Level 1 and Level 2 living in accommodation is available, are able to apply to live out and receive Optional Rent Allowance, and the entitlement to free transport or Vehicle Allowance from living in accommodation to the workplace has been removed. Recommendation: Alternatives for the provision of accommodation assistance and subsidies be pursued.Implementation: At its meeting of 31 May 1999 the Defence Executive tasked Head Defence Personnel Executive to undertake a review into more cost and tax effective ways of providing housing for MWODs and the ADF generally. The findings of that review were presented to the Defence Executive on 20 September 1999 and the Defence Executive agreed that: Present ADF housing assistance arrangements are generally sound, with some scope for modifications to improve equity and cost-effectiveness; A full cashing out of housing assistance arrangements to members will not be pursued because it would deliver inequitable outcomes to individuals and not support defence capability; A modified Rental Allowance option for MWOD where only Level 1 or Level 2 LIA is available will be introduced;MWOD retaining LIA or Rental Allowance premises while absent in the field or at sea will be required to continue to pay their accommodation contribution for the first 21 days of their absence; The casual meal charges and discounted fortnightly meal charges will be increased; and The first purchase element of HPSEA will be converted to provide home purchase deposit assistance. Recommendation: The relocation of a unit, formation or facility take account the demography of the organisation involved, and any trends likely to impact upon the people.Implementation: A business case has been prepared that outlines issues associated with relocation. It includes the work and social needs of the people and families, and how those needs will be met. There is now also a responsibility on the `client' Service to clearly articulate the requirement as it impacts on capability and personnel.Recommendation: The purchasing power and beneficial impact upon the community of a Defence presence should be marketed more effectively, particularly in negotiations with state and regional authorities for the provision of infrastructure.Implementation: This recommendation was effectively implemented by the creation of the Defence Estate Organisation in 1997, which in turn developed a Strategic Plan for the Defence Estate. This plan provides a framework within which detailed developments and changes in the Defence Estate take place, and helps facilitate `... consideration of key economic and cost effectiveness factors ... on regional economies'.Recommendation: The management of removals and housing allocations be placed on a commercial basis.Implementation: Responsibility for the management of removals and housing allocations was passed to the Defence Housing Authority on 1 July 2000.Recommendation: A comprehensive approach be developed for the ways in which non financial recognition can be granted.Implementation: As a result of the Defence Reform Program, policies on Commendations for Service, the Order of Australia and Conspicuous Service Decorations are managed on a tri-Service basis. ADF personnel now have access to a larger range of non-financial awards across a range of levels to recognise their contributions.Recommendation: Whatever conditions of service prevail they be presented as a comprehensive package.Implementation: This recommendation was achieved with the introduction of the Comparative Employment Value Adjustable Model. The model provides the value of employment in the ADF and is a computer based ready reckoner approach that can be accessed on the Defence INTRANET.Chapter Six - Support for Members and Families.Recommendation: The ADF develop a strategic policy on family support which determines what families need, what should be provided, what should be the division of responsibility between the member and the ADF, and how the service should be provided. Implementation: This recommendation is the subject of ongoing action. In particular, there is now an Australian Defence Force Family Support Policy - the latest update of this policy was issued on 4 August 2000. Further policy details the organisation, role and operations of the Defence Community Organisation, and provides guidance on the operations of the principal member and family support agencies. This policy is also in the process of being updated to reflect the new structures of the Defence Organisation, and the expectations of the organisational (the Services) and individual clients (ADF members and families). Recommendation: The provision of family support be based on helping members to help themselves, particularly through the development of self help programs.Implementation: This is also an ongoing process, and all Defence Community Organisation programs foster independence and self help. Program 1 (Casework) is based on the professional ethic of the core service delivery personnel, Defence Social Workers, that is, self determination. The work of Regional Education Liaison Officers and Family Liaison Officers focuses on assisting ADF members and families to settle into support networks in various locations. Program 2 (Community Work) fosters and sponsors self-help projects with the ultimate aim of building support networks for families. The Spouse Employment Assistance Program and the Family Support Funding Program provide seed funding for projects. Recommendation: Family support mechanisms be designed to cope with the transition from today's environment to levels of conflict.Implementation: The deployment of ADF personnel to East Timor in support of Operation WARDEN/STABILISE has provided the Defence Community Organisation further opportunity to firmly establish its role in the support of ADF members and their families. An internal report on this issue to the Head of the Defence Personnel Executive noted that the family support processes followed in peacetime have been robust enough to ramp up for major deployments. The establishment of the National Welfare Coordination Centre to work in close cooperation with the Defence Community Organisation has provided a single point of contact for the coordination of welfare support to the families of personnel deployed to East Timor. Recommendation: An ADF spouse employment assistance policy be developed to encompass employment assistance service, job search assistance, training and education assistance, and access to unemployment benefits.Implementation: The ADF Spouse Employment Assistance Program has been implemented for ADF spouses seeking employment. Assistance includes access to a Defence Community Organisation sponsored internet based employer/employee matching service, access to internet based employment services and advertising, the use of quality hardware and software for resume and application preparation, “employment expos” and Defence sponsored referral to Job Network agencies. Validation of the scope of the requirement is being pursued to enable further options to be considered. Recommendation: A comprehensive ADF child-care policy be developed.Implementation: A Defence Child Care Policy has been developed. There are currently 16 employer sponsored Defence childcare centres, supplemented by family day care, holiday and after-school services. Management of the program has been contracted to a specialist childcare organisation - KU Childrens' Services. The Defence Community Organisation manages the contract and conducts visits to ensure standards are maintained.Recommendation: The Education Assistance Review consider a communication strategy to influence education decision makers, and also examine the adequacy of education allowance and assistance with accommodation and reunion costs when a child cannot transfer to the new locality.Implementation: The Defence Community Organisation maintains contact with the Commonwealth Department of Education and produces regular briefings for the Minister and other components of the Defence Organisation on education issues affecting Defence families. A Defence representative has been invited to attend the pre and post briefings around the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. In October 1996 a revision of education assistance introduced assistance to members with tertiary level students and provided limited assistance to members with children who have special needs. Recommendation: A range of measures be adopted to accommodate the requirements of families with special needs.Implementation: Policy was introduced in 1998 which provides a range of support measures to assist families with special needs when posted to a new location. A post-implementation review of the policy is currently being conducted.Recommendation: Strategies be developed to ensure that volunteer organisations remain viable and continue to complement formal ADF support structures.Implementation: Volunteer organisations and support groups are supported by Defence Community Organisation staff, and by seed funding from the Family Support Funding Program. Close cooperative relationships are maintained with the two prominent volunteer organisations - the National Consultative Group of Service Families and the Defence Special Needs Support Group. Both have national coordinators and a supporting regional structure. Chapter Seven - The Reserves.Serving Australia contained eleven recommendations relating to Reserve service in the ADF. In 1999, these issues were identified as being largely inter-related and best addressed in a composite and coherent manner. In December 1999, two submissions intended to enhance Reserve force capabilities were presented to Cabinet. All the relevant recommendations contained in Serving Australia were addressed within the context of these submissions. Cabinet subsequently directed that Defence legislation be amended to reflect the content of the submissions. To that end, the Defence Act 1903, the Naval Defence Act 1910 and the Air Force Act 1923 are to be amended to extend the options available to the Government for the use of the Reserves. The Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 will also be amended to provide appropriate protections for both Reservists and employers. The amendments are expected to be introduced during the current Spring session of parliament. The proposed legislative amendments will: - extend the circumstances in which the Reserves may be called out, to include warlike, defence emergency, peace enforcement, civil and humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations in peacetime; - incorporate a code to provide reasonable levels of protection for both Reservists and employers in time of call out, upon volunteering for continuous full-time service in connection with operations and in support of operations, and for the normal requirements of peacetime service; - provide protections for student and self-employed Reservists; - facilitate the payment of financial incentives and compensatory payments to employers of Reservists and self-employed Reservists; and - empower the Service chiefs, by Regulation, to introduce categories within the Reserve forces to best suit their service requirements.Chapter Eight - A Learning Organisation. Recommendation: The ADF adopt strategic policies to ensure that it functions as a `learning organisation'.Implementation: This was a general recommendation that is the subject of ongoing action. New policy covering officer education has been published, and this is being further developed to cover enlisted personnel.Recommendation: Training and education issues be included in the broader aspects of strategic corporate planning and policy making and be reflected in the Strategic Personnel Plan. Implementation: Action on this recommendation was subsumed by the establishment of the Joint Education and Training agency on 1 July 1997, which has subsequently evolved to become the Defence Education and Training agency. The Defence Education and Training Corporate Plan reflects a commitment to building an education and training system that supports Defence's capacity to achieve the `knowledge edge'.Recommendation: The Training Commanders' Forum become an instrument for strategic planning and policy development, and be chaired by ACPERS when strategic issues are considered.Implementation: The Defence Education and Training Committee - chaired at two star level - serves this purpose. The Committee has recently expanded its membership to provide a whole-of-Defence perspective.Recommendation: The Training Commands adopt best practice and develop a partnership approach to more effectively analyse, develop, conduct and evaluate training.Implementation: The three Training Commands have adopted the Systems Approach to Training, which embraces best practice, and allows Defence to align with the National Training Framework. Partnership of the Training Commands is also supported by the formation of the Defence Education and Training agency.Recommendation: The ADF provide enhanced professional programs aimed at developing management skills including personnel management skills.Implementation: The main vehicle for professional development within the ADF is the Australian Defence College at Weston Creek. This will be augmented by the opening of the Australian Command and Staff College in January 2001. The development of management and personnel management skills is also being addressed as part of curriculum development for other ADF training courses.Recommendation: An over-arching policy on skills accreditation be developed by HQADF and included in the Strategic Personnel Plan.Implementation: With effect 18 February 2000, the National Training Information System had itemised 421 qualifications where Defence training has been accredited. There is a rolling process in place to ensure accreditation remains current.Recommendation: The ADF provide a more flexible range of training and education options taking account of the emergence of new competencies, different delivery methods and learning for personal growth.Implementation: The ADF is actively pursuing flexible delivery of training, has a positive relationship with the Australian National Training Authority (with a Defence Civilian located in the Brisbane office), has representatives on various Industry Training Advisory Bodies, and works closely with the ACT Accreditation Registration Council. This assists the ADF to stay abreast of contemporary training issues. Recommendation: The ADF continue to rationalise training.Implementation: Rationalisation of training within the ADF is an ongoing process, for which Defence Education and Training is primarily responsible.Recommendation: The costs of training be measured more effectively.Implementation: As part of the training rationalisation process, training is being costed. The costing process is being further refined, and several projects underway in Defence, including the adoption of accrual accounting, will assist in this process.Chapter Nine - Setting the Balance - A New Management Style. Recommendation: Personnel policy development take account of the shift in balance needed between the corporate needs of the ADF and the needs of its people.Implementation: This is a general recommendation, and the ADF faces an ongoing challenge to balance the competing demands of the Services and the expectations of individual personnel. The implementation of many of the recommendations of Serving Australia goes some way towards achieving such a balance. Recommendation: More discretion be pursued in the design of personnel policies.Implementation: A more positive approach is now taken to how personnel policy is written. Policy is now written in a way that explains what personnel are entitled to, rather than what they are not entitled to.Recommendation: Training for personnel staff include the concepts of equity, discretion, choice and broad banding.Implementation: This was a very general recommendation advocating the application of specific principles during the development of ADF personnel policy. The ADF provides formal training on principles such as equity to all staff, and also meets the intent of this recommendation by ensuring that there is wide consultation with members during the development of personnel policies.Recommendation: A plain English rewriting exercise be applied to any personnel policy document being replaced or changed.Implementation: Although the enabling legislation for ADF personnel policy is often cumbersome, policy is now written in a plain English style wherever possible. Chapter Ten - Strategic Links - The Personnel Process. Recommendation: A systemic relationship be established between the personnel, investment and operations functions in managing the ADF.Implementation: The Defence Reform Program also recognised the need to integrate the functions of workforce planning, service conditions and career management. These functions were brought together under the Defence Personnel Executive in 1997. The creation of the Defence Personnel Executive assists the Secretary, CDF and the three Service Chiefs in the discharge of their command and administration responsibilities in relation to ADF and APS personnel.Recommendation: TYDP and FYDP procedures be enhanced by linking personnel planning requirements into all strategic and planning processes.Implementation: The Net Personnel and Operating Cost review process was introduced in 1995/96, and is part of the broader FYDP development process. It involves a review of major new investment projects with the aim of finding significant associated personnel and operating impacts for the purpose of long term resource planning. The Net Personnel and Operating Cost review process addresses the significant personnel costs associated with major capabilities. Life Cycle Costing analysis is another process that focuses on the full life of an acquisition and takes into account personnel costs over the life of the equipment. Recommendation: A planning and evaluation methodology be applied to personnel.Implementation: The Defence Personnel Executive has developed a personnel planning process (the `Blue Book') which facilitates resource planning for the personnel component of the FYDP.Recommendation: A Strategic Personnel Plan be developed for the ADF.Implementation: The Defence Personnel Executive has developed and maintains the ADF Strategic Personnel Plan.Recommendation: At all levels there be a partnership approach to the development of personnel policy.Implementation: The establishment of the Defence Personnel Executive has significantly enhanced the communication and development of personnel policy between the three Services.Recommendation: The senior personnel committee be renamed the Defence Personnel Committee, with strategic outlook and executive powers, and chaired by the VCDF.Implementation: The Defence Reform Program and the creation of the Defence Personnel Executive moved beyond this recommendation, and established a permanent mechanism for strengthening strategic personnel planning in the ADF. Recommendation: There be cross membership between the personnel and capability committees.Implementation: The Defence Reform Program and the creation of the Defence Personnel Executive moved beyond this recommendation. The establishment of the Defence Personnel Executive and Capability Development Division has facilitated consideration of personnel issues as part of capability development.Recommendation: The role of ACPERS be upgraded to accommodate strategic responsibilities.Implementation: With the creation of the Defence Personnel Executive, the title of ACPERS ceased to exit, and the Head Defence Personnel Executive assumed responsibility for addressing ADF strategic personnel issues.Recommendation: The roles of the Service Assistant Chiefs of Staff for Personnel be augmented to take account of their strategic responsibilities.Implementation: With the creation of the Defence Personnel Executive, the single Service personnel functions were subsumed into one organisation. While this structure has been subsequently modified again, Head Defence Personnel Executive retains responsibility for addressing ADF strategic personnel issues.Recommendation: A Strategic Personnel Planning Group be formed in HQADF to provide an analytical and strategic level personnel outlook.Implementation: The requirement to create the Strategic Personnel Planning Group was subsumed by the Defence Reform Program and the creation of the Defence Personnel Executive.Recommendation: A Personnel Policy Coordination Forum be formed to achieve more effective cooperation on personnel issues.Implementation: The requirement to create the Personnel Policy Coordination Forum was subsumed by the Defence Reform Program and the creation of the Defence Personnel Executive.Recommendation: The personnel components of HQADF and HR&M Division be examined to harmonise skills and talents, refine divisions or responsibility and strengthen linkages.Implementation: HR&M Division was dis-established during the Defence Reform Program. The intent of this recommendation was achieved by the subsequent establishment of the Defence Personnel Executive.Chapter Eleven - Industrial Relations in the ADF. Recommendation: A mechanism for consultation with members, separate from the chain of command, be developed.Implementation: The ADF has introduced an enhanced consultation and education program for ADF members on conditions of service matters. The process compliments the chain of command process. The process was used during the successful 1999 Australian Defence Enterprise Productivity Arrangement negotiations.Recommendation: Powers under Section 58B of the Defence Act currently administered by DIR be transferred to the CDF.Implementation: These powers were transferred to Defence on 18 June 1998. Changes to the Administrative Arrangements Orders transferred responsibility for sections 58A to 58E of the Defence Act 1903 to the Minister for Defence (ie, Section 58B determinations).Recommendation: Commanders have an understanding of the ADF industrial relations system.Implementation: An ongoing consultation and education program has been introduced to provide commanders with an understanding of the industrial processes (conditions of service) employed within the ADF. The information is available electronically and through presentations by specialist staff.Recommendation: Channels for complaint be adjusted to provide that policy change proposals be dealt with in the proposed consultation process. Implementation: Effective administrative arrangements currently exist to address member's complaints or other communications. In addition, the enhanced consultation and education program introduced as part of the recent ADF Enterprise Productivity Arrangement provided an open channel for communications on service condition matters.Chapter Twelve - Supporting Personnel Management.Recommendation: Personnel management become recognised as a specialist area of employment and career streaming for personnel specialists be adopted.Implementation: This is an ongoing process. Since 1998, the ADF has taken a pro-active approach to employing specialist personnel in career and workforce management by sponsoring personnel in academic studies in Human Resource Management.Recommendation: Personnel experience be a prerequisite for advancement to the highest echelons of the ADF.Implementation: Although the requirement for personnel experience has not been codified as a prerequisite for advancement in the ADF, it should be noted that most key ADF appointments are people focussed. Members of the ADF cannot progress to high rank without exposure to appointments providing `personnel experience'.Recommendation: Interoperable personnel information systems be established for the aggregate management of the ADF, with the characteristics of consistent terminology, transparency, analytical and modelling capability, and accessibility.Implementation: The ADF has combined the three Service's Workforce Planning sections with a view to integrating the strategic personnel planning function. In addition, the Personnel Management Key Solution project is in the process of developing a centralised data base, including pay, training, career management functions and personal records for ADF personnel and Defence civilians.Recommendation: The ADF continuously monitor the external and internal environments which impact on personnel.Implementation: The ADF now monitors the needs of its personnel through the use of attitude surveys, exit surveys and other information gathering techniques. In addition, the Defence Personnel Executive has established a research capability which is able to monitor the external and internal environments which impact on personnel.Recommendation: The ADF enhance and sustain its personnel research and analysis capability.Implementation: The Defence Personnel Executive has established a personnel planning and research section.Recommendation: ADF managers take into account numbers, activity and price when considering personnel costs.Implementation: This was a general recommendation that nonetheless has been addressed within the ADF by the establishment of a consolidated directorate of workforce planning and establishments.Chapter Thirteen - Change and Communication.Recommendation: The ADF develop and instil a new culture of personnel management through the introduction of a change management philosophy, in consultation with key stakeholders.Implementation: This is an ongoing process. In 1997 the Defence Personnel Executive was created as a result of the Defence Reform Program. One of the aims of this was to promote greater consultation with stakeholders, and the progressive improvement of ADF personnel management. Recommendation: The change management philosophy include a combination of developmental and task focused strategies.Implementation: This is an ongoing process, however, the recommendations contained in Serving Australia have provided a basis for changing personnel management strategies in the ADF. Subsequently, the Defence Reform Program has further enhanced change management philosophy as part of a broader commitment to change across all of the ADF. Recommendation: A communication plan support the implementation and ongoing management of the ADF Personnel Policy Strategy.Implementation: The ADF has a adopted a number of communication strategies since 1995. The Service newspapers have been enhanced to provide more information on policy changes. The most important conduit of information about personnel policy has been the publication of The Key. The Key is published by the Defence Personnel Executive and provides information on personnel policy in plain English. The Key is sent to all personnel in the Defence Organisation. Recommendation: Personnel policies be promulgated in a comprehensive, accessible and easily understood form which is conducive to prompt amendment.Implementation: This is an ongoing process. The Defence Personnel Executive is in the process of simplifying personnel policies so as to provide easier to read documents.Recommendation: The rationale for management decisions be fully articulated to middle management levels - the change leaders.Implementation: This is a general recommendation which has been supported by the inclusion of personnel policy and management presentations on all key ADF career development courses.Recommendation: A comprehensive external communication strategy be developed toward building the image of the ADF in the Australian community.Implementation: A Defence Communication Development Strategy has been developed in conjunction with the establishment of the Public Affairs and Corporate Communication Division. This provides the foundation for the development of a Defence Communication Strategy that will be completed by February 2001.Recommendation: The outcomes of this Review including the key recommendations, implementation plan and timetable be communicated to the members of the ADF as soon as possible.Implementation: The recommendations put forward in Serving Australia have been widely publicised in Service newspapers and The Key. In addition, the various projects established to implement the recommendations of Serving Australia have at various times maintained web sites to facilitate access by ADF personnel to their work.Chapter Fourteen - Major Challenges. Recommendation: The needs of people be considered when decisions are being taken about the relocation or establishment of units, formations and facilities.Implementation: A business case has been prepared that outlines issues associated with relocation. It includes the work and social needs of the people and families, and how those needs will be met. There is now also a responsibility on the `client' Service to clearly articulate the requirement as it impacts on capability and personnel.Recommendation: The ADF review the way in which force elements are configured, operate and deploy.Implementation: The configuration of ADF force elements is a matter of constant review and refinement. Personnel have always been an important factor in shaping these force elements.Recommendation: Resource implications arising out of this Review be handled through normal budgetary processes with detailed work being undertaken to develop financial models of training costs and phased careers.Implementation: Resource implications have been addressed as part of the consideration of individual recommendations in this review. A consequence has been the rejection or partial completion of a number of recommendations, eg, the `universal application of completion incentives' has not been implemented because the cost of this recommendation was prohibitive. (2) The following is a list of recommendations contained in Serving Australia that have not been implemented. While some of these recommendations have been rejected, the implementation of many others is still in progress. This list is a summary only - Question Three addresses those recommendations still in progress in more detail, while Question Four addresses those recommendations that have been rejected in more detail. Chapter Four - Employment and Work Practices - The ADF recruit to a constant base and manage separations. - The ADF introduce a system of Phased Careers based on Fixed Terms of Employment, with the number and lengths of phases varying of occupational groups. - A Completion Incentive be paid at the end of each career phase, with the quantum varying for occupational groups. - Resettlement Assistance be provided for members leaving the ADF at the end of a career phase. - Limited Tenure Promotion be extended to all rank levels. - Management Initiated Early Retirement be extended to all rank levels. - A more flexible approach to the staffing of ADF positions be adopted by the use of relief pools, secondments, exchanges, second career streams and labour exchanges. - The ADF encourage more lateral recruitment and the re-employment of former members without detriment. - Communication be maintained with members not in continuous contact with the ADF, including advice on training and career development opportunities. - Physical fitness standards should be aligned to occupational requirements and meet OH&S responsibilities. - Establishment Practices be reviewed to facilitate Flexible Work Practices. - At the expiration of the current exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act, no further exemption be sought.Chapter Five - Reward, Recognition and Entitlements - A new pay system be introduced based on work value and be applied to both other rank and officer rank members. - A Market Forces Pay Element, additional to work value, be introduced for occupations where, due to high demand in the employment market, it is difficult to attract and retain members - If in the new pay system a member moves from a higher paid job to a lower paid job, the pay of the member should be frozen until the remuneration of the position occupied increases above the frozen rate. - Members who have plateaued in rank but who are performing at a demonstrably superior level be paid one or more performance increments. - A Mobility Allowance, comprising three elements (an incentive to move, posting turbulence and disturbance) be introduced and paid on the occurrence of each move, with the quantum varying with members' circumstances. - Service Allowance covers those elements that apply to all members and be incorporated into salary. - The proposed work value based review of ADF pay considers whether any allowances or elements thereof can be incorporated into salary. - The work value elements of Flying Allowance and Submarine Service Allowance be incorporated into work value based pay, and the attraction and retention element of Flying Allowance be dealt with under the Market Forces Pay Element. - The provision of living-in accommodation be reassessed and the management of such accommodation be transferred to a commercial agency. - A team and unit citation be introduced to recognise outstanding contribution or achievement in non operational activities. Chapter Six - Support for Members and FamiliesAll recommendations have been implemented.Chapter Seven - The ReservesAll recommendations are being addressed as part of proposed Government legislation on enhancing the contribution of the Reserves to ADF capability.Chapter Eight - A Learning Organisation - The competencies and skills required for each ADF occupation and the pre-requisites necessary for entry to training in those occupations be clearly specified. - The Australian Defence Force Academy be used in a more flexible manner to meet ADF training and education needs.Chapter Nine - Setting the Balance - A New Management StyleAll recommendations have been implemented.Chapter Ten - Strategic Links - The Personnel ProcessAll recommendations have been implemented.Chapter Eleven - Industrial Relations in the ADF - The mechanism consist of forums at the local, regional and central levels where personnel issues would be resolved. - A Defence Member Representative be created, with a small secretariat to assist members in the forum process and to make formal representations on behalf of members. - The employer role for the ADF be vested in the CDF and the role of HQADF staff be adjusted accordingly.Chapter Twelve - Supporting Personnel Management - The ADF establish a simple and flexible legal infrastructure to support the personnel process.Chapter Thirteen - Change and CommunicationAll recommendations have been implemented.Chapter Fourteen - Major Challenges - Geographical stability for members and their families be achieved through the collocation of support infrastructure and operational elements and the tri-Service clustering of mutually supporting units, formations and facilities. - Respite for members be achieved by adjusting manpower requirements and the level of activities and operational commitments including preparedness requirements. - Job requirements be clearly specified and that members be promoted on merit. (3) Recommendations not implemented that are being progressed are as follows:Chapter 4 - Employment and Work Practices.Recommendation: The ADF recruit to a constant base and manage separations.Implementation: Given the significant personnel shortages across the ADF, it will take a number of years to stabilise recruit numbers to the point where a constant base can be established.Recommendation: The ADF introduce a system of Phased Careers based on Fixed Terms of Employment, with the number and lengths of phases varying for occupational groups.Implementation: Fixed terms of employment (fixed periods of service) were introduced in July 1998. The introduction of Phased Careers however has proved problematic, and has failed to gain Service clearance to date. It is unlikely that the concept of `Phased Careers' will be fully adopted.Recommendation: Resettlement Assistance be provided for members leaving the ADF at the end of a career phase. Implementation: The Career Transition Assistance scheme is developing an enhanced range of resettlement provisions that will be more widely available to ADF personnel. The emphasis is on better marketing and documentation of ADF competencies and experience. The intent is to de-link benefits from the 20 year service point. Development will continue throughout 2000 and the planned implementation date is in July 2001.Recommendation: Limited Tenure Promotion be extended to all rank levels.Implementation: Amendments to the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 were recently passed by Parliament to extend the provision of Limited Tenure Promotion to the ranks of Lieutenant Colonel and Commander. These amendments are currently awaiting Royal Assent. Amendments to relevant Defence Regulations to extend the provision of Limited Tenure Promotion to the ranks of Wing Commander and Warrant Officer Class One (equivalent) are currently being drafted.Because there is a requirement for personnel who accept an offer of Limited Tenure Promotion to resign on completion of their appointment, it was not considered appropriate to further extend the use of Limited Tenure Promotion to more junior ranks.Recommendation: Management Initiated Early Retirement be extended to all rank levels.Implementation: A draft policy has been raised extending eligibility for Management Initiated Early Retirement to the ranks of warrant officer and major (equivalent). Legislative changes have been initiated and are expected to be in place by the end of the year 2000.Recommendation: A more flexible approach to the staffing of ADF positions be adopted by the use of relief pools, secondments, exchanges, second career streams and labour exchanges. (This recommendation and implementation also appears in response to Question 4) - Exchanges/Secondments. A new policy on exchanges is being raised and should be completed within 12 months. Further development of secondments is being examined. A concept paper on this issue has been raised and sent to stakeholders. - Second Career Streams. Army's `Project OPERA' (Officer Professional Effectiveness Review - Army) has rejuven-ated interest within the other two Services at addressing second career streams. Both Navy and Air Force are now assessing the outcomes of Project OPERA. Recommendation: The ADF encourage more lateral recruitment and the re-employment of former members without detriment.Implementation: Lateral recruitment and re-employment are components of the Flexible Employment Practices project. Concept papers on these issues have been circulated, and it is expected that action on these recommendations will be finalised by the end of this year.Recommendation: Physical fitness standards should be aligned to occupational requirements and meet OH&S responsibilities.Implementation: Each of the Services is in the process of developing detailed physical fitness requirements, however the requirement to match standards with occupational requirements has not been achieved and is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. A more holistic approach has been taken by the Services to meet their deployability needs.Chapter Five - Reward, Recognition and Entitlements.Recommendation: A new pay system be introduced based on work value and be applied to both other rank and officer rank members.Implementation: A structure has been set up based on work value methodology for ADF officers, however the pay system is not yet in place because of a requirement for cost-neutrality.Recommendation: A Market Forces Pay Element, additional to work value, be introduced for occupations where, due to high demand in the employment market, it is difficult to attract and retain membersImplementation: This activity has been incorporated into the ADF Financial Incentive Scheme draft policy, which is expected to be finalised by the end of this year. Notwithstanding, the availability of funding is likely to severely restrict the use of this facility. Recommendation: The provision of living-in accommodation be reassessed and the management of such accommodation be transferred to a commercial agency.Implementation: Studies are being undertaken as to the best method of providing living-in-accommodation. Consideration is being given to the provision of accommodation off-base and for the Defence Housing Authority to assume responsibility for the management of it.Recommendation: A team and unit citation be introduced to recognise outstanding contribution or achievement in non operational activities.Implementation: A submission is currently with CDF proposing introduction of a citation to recognise activities in support of East Timor, however consideration of a non-operational team or unit citation has not been progressed.Chapter Eight - A Learning OrganisationRecommendation: The competencies and skills required for each ADF occupation and the pre-requisites necessary for entry to training in those occupations be clearly specified.Implementation: This is being addressed via the Defence Scoping Project, currently limited to other ranks, with the intent being to subsequently expand the Project to include Officers.Recommendation: The Australian Defence Force Academy be used in a more flexible manner to meet ADF training and education needs.Implementation: This issue is being progressed as part of the renegotiation of the (ADFA) agreement between UNSW and Defence. In particular, Defence Education and Training is proposing reform of the Academy through the development of: - An institution capable of greater flexibility in the delivery of education services to support the Services' needs for officer development. - Policy and management frameworks that will support increased diversity and level of access by Defence (and possibly others) to the resources embedded in the institution.Chapter Eleven - Industrial relations in the ADFRecommendation: The employer role for the ADF be vested in the CDF and the role of HQADF staff be adjusted accordingly.Implementation: A proposed amendment to the Administrative Arrangements Order seeking transfer of sections 58F to 58Q of the Defence Act 1903 from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to the Minister for Defence is currently with the Prime Minister's office for approval.Chapter Fourteen - Major ChallengesRecommendation: Geographical stability for members and their families be achieved through the collocation of support infrastructure and operational elements and the tri-Service clustering of mutually supporting units, formations and facilities.Implementation: Chief of Defence Force Directive 19, issued in 1995 advised that: - geographic turbulence is to be restricted and that members are to be retained in the same geographic location for two successive postings if possible, - the only exceptions are postings required for operational effectiveness and the need for career development of the individual, and - financial considerations for both the Service and member are to influence the movement of personnel. More recently, the Posting Turbulence Review Team (PTRT) has been established by the CDF and Secretary to review posting turbulence within the ADF. The PTRT has been tasked to: - Examine all the costs associated with postings and related relocations to determine why the costs are so high. - Review posting philosophies, policies and practices to try and slow the frequency of postings. - Examine service conditions to see if they achieve their original aims. - Examine removals and accommodation policies to see if they are efficient, and to reduce the overall costs to Defence of moving and accommodating its people, and - Assess the impact of the Defence Estate Strategic Plan on posting costs. A central aim of the review is to reduce the frequency of postings and removals in order to reduce posting turbulence, allow greater job mastery and create greater geographic stability for ADF families.Recommendation: Job requirements be clearly specified and that members be promoted on merit.Implementation: This is an ongoing process. This is a major task and each of the Services recognises the need to provide accurate job descriptions. Each of the Services has gone some way to addressing this problem by providing generic job annotations. However, the annotations are not yet linked to succession planning, recruiting targets, and training requirements. (4) Recommentations of Serving Australia that have been rejected are as follows:Chapter Four - Employment and Work Practices.Recommendation: A Completion Incentive be paid at the end of each career phase, with the quantum varying for occupational groups.Implementation: Resource constraints mean that completion incentives can only be paid to selected occupations. Further, there is conflicting evidence about the value of completion incentives in improving the retention of personnel, and for this reason, extensions to the use of such incentives are now tightly constrained.Recommendation: A more flexible approach to the staffing of ADF positions be adopted by the use of relief pools, secondments, exchanges, second career streams and labour exchanges. (This recommendation and implementation also appears in response to Question 3) - Relief staffing pools: This recommendation was made prior to the Defence Reform Program and consequential reductions in the size of the ADF. While there was an early attempt to create `tiger teams' for special projects and to provide assistance where necessary in the workforce, there is now insufficient redundancy in ADF staff levels to implement this recommendation. - Labour exchanges: While there has been no formal implementation of this recommendation, the Services make every attempt to co-locate married Service couples. If a member is married to a member of another Service, each of the Career Management Agencies contacts the other Service to advise them of their intention to move the individual. Recommendation: Communication be maintained with members not in continuous contact with the ADF, including advice on training and career development opportunities.Implementation: The requirement to maintain communication with former members of the ADF, and to provide them with documentation on training and career development opportunities would be cost prohibitive. Information is, however, made available to members in the Active Reserve component of the ADF.Recommendation: Establishment practices be reviewed to facilitate Flexible Work Practices.Implementation: The Personnel Management Key Solutions project will provide a consolidated ADF personnel and establishment database (at present there are five different databases: one for each of the Services, one for the Australian Public Service and another for ADF Headquarters positions). It may be possible to review establishment practices once the new database is on-line, however this recommendation is considered highly problematic, and the staff and resources do not currently exist to implement it. Recommendation: At the expiration of the current exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act, no further exemption be sought.Implementation: There is no time limit to exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act unless there is a change to the Act. Chapter Five - Reward, Recognition and EntitlementsRecommendation: If in the new pay system a member moves from a higher paid job to a lower paid job, the pay of the member should be frozen until the remuneration of the position occupied increases above the frozen rate.Implementation: The model recommended by Serving Australia has not been followed by the Pay Salary Review but has been used as the basis for the development of the ADF work value model. The ADF work value model allocates a pay band according to the averages of all the jobs a member's specialisation could expect to perform. Recommendation: Members who have plateaued in rank but who are performing at a demonstrably superior level be paid one or more performance increments.Implementation: This recommendation was not implemented because the ADF pay structures and remuneration scales that were developed were based on work value, not on individual performance. If a member has plateaued in rank, then they will have already reached the top increment under the Common Pay Scale.Recommendation: A Mobility Allowance, comprising three elements (an incentive to move, posting turbulence and disturbance) be introduced and paid on the occurrence of each move, with the quantum varying with members' circumstances.Implementation: The allowance was to be implemented on a cost neutral basis, with funding achieved by freezing Service Allowance. Any additional increase in Service Allowance through normal pay increases was to be transferred to a Mobility Allowance `fund'. This attracted a number of adverse comments from various interest groups within Defence, and the decision to implement the Mobility Allowance has been put on hold. Recommendation: Service Allowance cover those elements that apply to all members and be incorporated into salary.Implementation: This concept has been regularly considered over the last 10-15 years. Each consideration has concluded that there is a requirement to separately identify the elements of Service Allowance for industrial reasons. These elements, which are separate to the concept of work value upon which salary is based, would lose their impact if incorporated into salary. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal has identified this allowance for review in the current financial year.Recommendation: The proposed work value based review of ADF pay consider whether any allowances or elements thereof can be incorporated into salary.Implementation: This recommendation was considered, and it was proposed to incorporate the work value elements of the four `environment' allowances into salary. This, however, proved difficult to implement because; roll-in was differentially applied across the ranks, it was hard to separate the work value component of the rank, and the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal expressed reservations about the concept during conference time. Recommendation: The work value elements of Flying Allowance and Submarine Service Allowance be incorporated into work value based pay, and the attraction and retention element of Flying Allowance be dealt with under the Market Forces Pay Element.Implementation: As above - this recommendation was considered, and it was proposed to incorporate the work value elements of the four `environment' allowances into salary. This, however, proved difficult to implement because; roll-in was differentially applied across the ranks, it was hard to separate the work value component of the rank, and the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal expressed reservations about the concept during conference time. Chapter Eleven - Industrial relations in the ADFRecommendation: The mechanism consist of forums at the local, regional and central levels where personnel issues would be resolved.Implementation: This issue has been considered however the staff and resources do not exist to establish the network of local regional and central forums recommended in Serving Australia. Notwithstanding, the Defence Personnel Executive has established a mechanism using the Defence INTRANET to allow ADF personnel to contribute to discussions on the development of personnel policy. Recommendation: A Defence Member Representative be created, with a small secretariat to assist members in the forum process and to make formal representations on behalf of members.Implementation: This issue has been considered however the staff and resources do not exist to establish a Defence Member Representative and associated secretariat. Alternative mechanisms—in particular the Defence Equity Organisation—have been established by the Defence Personnel Executive to facilitate representations by ADF personnel on the development of personnel policies. Chapter Twelve - Supporting Personnel ManagementRecommendation: The ADF establish a simple and flexible legal infrastructure to support the personnel process.Implementation: This recommendation involves fundamental reform of all of the legislation which pertains to the ADF, is far beyond the capacity of the Australian Defence Organisation to undertake with present staff resources.Chapter Fourteen - Major ChallengesRecommendation: Respite for members be achieved by adjusting manpower requirements and the level of activities and operational commitments including preparedness requirements.Implementation: Respite continues to be a problem for ADF personnel in some areas. The operational tempo has actually increased since the release of Serving Australia, thereby increasing pressure on many ADF personnel. The ability of ADF personnel to sustain this increased operational tempo will be considered during development of the Defence White Paper.22558(Question No. 1826)182622558Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: In 1999-2000 in the Minister's Department, what was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service Salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band.22558Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The average salary paid in each Australian Public Service Salary band in 1999-00 is set out in columns A, C and E of the following table for the Department of the Environment and Heritage (Environment Australia), the Bureau of Meteorology, and the Australian Antarctic Division. The table also includes “agency specific” bands for Environment Australia and the Australian Antarctic Division; and (b) The average staffing level for each band is set out in columns B, D and F of the following table for Environment Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Antarctic Division.PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION - PQ 1826 APS SALARY BANDSENVIRONMENT PORTFOLIO - AVERAGE SALARY AND STAFFING LEVELS 1999-00 Environment AustraliaBureau of MeteorologyAntarctic DivisionColumn AColumn BColumn CColumn DColumn EColumn FAPS LevelAV. SalaryAV. StaffingAV. SalaryAV. StaffingAV. SalaryAV. StaffingTrainees/Graduates301871728,38120.8APS 127,57211.02803613.87APS 22835594.61*30,85352.93076813.31APS 334715116.7637,115301.23466420.09APS 437723156.5737,90744.93880116.2APS 541561135.5441,648200.44309339.34APS 646251303.3848,205372.04893755.94Executive Level 158026255.9059,331289.26065925.1Executive Level 271589143.7674,906133.67953931.16SES and Equivalent977453793,84812.0943783.09EA PAO 1394053EA PAO 2485854.8EA PAO 3637679.31EA SPAO 1729633EA SPAO 2766861EA Research Scientist511282EA Senior Research Scientist704753EA Principal Research Scientist826703Antarctic Medical Practitioner 1939326.09Antarctic Medical Practitioner 2941422.09Antarctic Medical Practitioner 31030501Chief of Division1064441Expeditioner Band 14050257.06Expeditioner Band 24962745.87Expeditioner Band 3627607.3TOTAL1195.031438.00338.51* Note: Environment Australia has broadbanded APS Level 1 and 222558(Question No. 1869)186922558Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to claims made on ABC news on 21 August 2000 that the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Programs Unit has been forced to close its doors because of a funding shortage; if so, to what extent is the Federal Government responsible for the closure. (2) What evidence does the Government have that it is providing sufficient support to groups such as these, whose aim is to improve living conditions of Aboriginal people in Australia.22559Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question: (1) I have been informed that both the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Department of Health and Aged Care are aware of media reports relating to a decision by the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Programs Unit to curtail its services. This organisation was required to operate with a reduced budget allocation, as both the Territory Health Service and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, an independent statutory authority within the Portfolio of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, determined not to provide ongoing funding for a men's program. Rather than discontinue its men's program, the Unit chose to operate for only 40 weeks of the year. The funding decisions of the Northern Territory Government and Aboriginal Hostels Ltd did not alter a decision by the Department of Health and Aged Care to provide $470,838 to the Unit for a women's program. The Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, within the Department of Health and Aged Care, is currently discussing with the Unit concerns that it has in relation to overdue financial reports, the Unit's budget and accounting practices relating to the acquittal of grants, as well as concerns relating to $50,000 unspent from the 1999-2000 Financial Year. (2) Both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Governments share responsibility for providing health services, including drug and alcohol harm minimisation services, for Indigenous people in Central Australia. In the Alice Springs region, the Department of Health and Aged Care provides financial support for the Injatrnama Aboriginal Corporation ($213,089) for petrol sniffing and alcohol programs, Ilpurla Aboriginal Corporation ($108,194) also to address petrol sniffing and alcohol problems, Ngkarte Mikwekenhe ($43,205) for an alcohol liaison officer, Central Australian Aboriginal Congress ($495,607 over four years) for a mobile youth outreach program and for counselling, and the AIDS Council of Central Australia ($295,000 over four years) for a youth outreach program. These programs demonstrate the Commonwealth Government's commitment to addressing problems arising from licit and illicit drug abuse. 22559(Question No. 1981)198122559Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: Is the Australian Film Television and Radio School campus at North Ryde carried as an asset in the Commonwealth's balance sheet; if so, (a) has the valuation been based on historic cost, replacement value or deprival value (b) when was the valuation made and (c) what is the balance sheet value.22559McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Land and buildings at the Australian Film, Television and Radio School's North Ryde campus are carried as a non-financial asset on the Australian Film, Television and Radio School's balance sheet. (a) In accordance with Schedule 2 to the Commonwealth Authorities and Company Act Orders, the North Ryde buildings are revalued progressively in accordance with the deprival method of valuation in successive 3-year cycles. Land is valued annually on the basis of its existing use value. (b) Leasehold land and buildings were revalued at 30 June 2000. (c) The balance sheet value of the land and buildings at the North Ryde campus as at 30 June 2000 was $26.579million. This excludes accumulated depreciation and amortisation of $1.636 million.22559(Question No. 2003)200322559Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) Do Australia Post outlets no longer stock the complete range of Australian phone directories. (2) What is the reason for the withdrawal of phone directories from Australia Post outlets. (3) Does the Minister recognise that while phone directories are available on-line, many people, particularly in country areas, do not have access to the Internet and require the use of hard copies. (4) Will the Government take action to restore this service, if not why not.22561McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Based on advice received from Australia Post. (1) Australia Post has not displayed (or been required to display) full sets of all directories since they split from Telecom/Telstra in 1975. The display arrangements have changed over the years to reflect cost saving initiatives introduced by Telstra and customer demand. - Australia Post has a commercial agreement with Pacific Access (to which Telstra has outsourced its White and Yellow pages distribution function), for the display of telephone directories at postal outlets. Under the current agreement: - GPOs are required to display a full national set of White and Yellow Pages directories (excluding Local Yellow Pages); - Other postal outlets in metropolitan areas are required to display local directories; - Postal outlets in major country centres are required to display a full State set of White and Yellow Pages directories (excluding Local Yellow Pages); and - Other postal outlets in country areas are required to display the State's capital White and Yellow Pages directories, local directories and directories of areas bordering their location. In addition, from time to time, by mutual agreement, selected postal outlets may be required to display specialist telephone directories. (2) Demand for full sets of telephone directories at the majority of postal outlets is minimal. The current agreement was negotiated on fully commercial terms and accurately reflects customer demand. (3) Australia Post recognises that some people, particularly in country areas, do not have on-line access to telephone directories. Under the current agreement, individual postal outlets can obtain “out of area” directories, if requested. (4) The arrangements are a commercial matter for Australia Post. In accordance with the provisions in the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989, Australia Post is required to perform its functions, as far as practicable, in a manner consistent with sound commercial practice. Australia Post has advised that it does not have any plans to review the current display arrangements.22561(Question No. 2028)202822561Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 October 2000: (1) In 1999-2000 how many reservists were recruited into the (a) Navy (b) Army and (c) Air Force. (2) What are the 2000-01 recruitment targets for reservists for the (a) Navy (b) Army and (c) Air Force.22561Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Navy: 29. (b) Army: 1566. (c) Air Force: 104. (2) (a) Navy: 132. (b) Army: 4 778. (c) Air Force: 205.22561(Question No. 2030)203022561Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 October 2000: As of 31 June 2000, how many former Japanese Prisoners of War were still living in Australia.22561Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My department is aware of 2819 former Australian Prisoners of War of the Japanese who were living in Australia as at 30 June 2000. 22561(Question No. 2043)204322561Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 October 2000: (1) Is he aware that some Defence personnel from the RAAF have been classified as medically unfit and therefore discharged because they are insulin dependent diabetics. (2) Is he aware that some Defence personnel in the RAAF, the Army and the Navy who are also insulin dependent diabetics have been maintained in the Defence Forces. (3) Can he investigate and explain why those Defence personnel who have been discharged as medically unfit do not receive the same right to employment as other RAAF personnel with insulin dependent diabetes.22561Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (2) Yes (3) Insulin dependent diabetics are deemed to be non-deployable. If the parent Service considers that an individual possesses expertise that is essential and in short supply within the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the individual may be retained on waiver under tightly controlled conditions. In general, insulin dependent diabetics are discharged medically unfit for further service. The ADF has a duty of care for such individuals that cannot be waived by the individuals themselves.22561(Question No. 2069)206922561Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 October 2000: (1) Is he aware of recent criticism by the head of Microsoft, Mr Bill Gates, that the involvement of Telstra in the cable industry has inflated broadband Internet prices in Australia and slowed the take-up rate for high-speed access. (2) What is Telstra's response to this criticism. (3) What is his response to this criticism.22561McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I am aware of claims by Mr Gates during his visit to Australia in early September that broadband Internet penetration tends to be higher in countries where telecommunications companies are not significant owners of cable infrastructure. (2) Telstra advises that it has taken a prudent and cautious approach to the use of Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technologies in its network, to ensure that standards were resolved to avoid high-speed systems impacting both with each other in the network and on the several million existing customers served by the copper network. (3) Telstra further advises that many global companies can exclude Internet Service Provider costs, installation, activation and GST from their prices. Telstra considers that if these elements are included, its own costs for Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) services compare favourably with those of ADSL providers in the USA, Asia, the UK and New Zealand. The Government's view is that it is not necessary to structurally separate the ownership of infrastructure from the supply of telecommunications services in order to enjoy the benefits of competition in broadband services. What is important is that there be arrangements in place to ensure that telecommunications companies can gain access to the underlying infrastructure on reasonable terms and conditions. In Australia, we have a telecommunications access regime which has increasingly become a model for other countries. Telecommunications companies may seek to have essential services `declared' by the ACCC for access. The ACCC may declare a service where it considers this would be in the long-term interest of end-users of telecommunications, normally following a public inquiry process. Once a service is declared, a carrier or service provider who supplies that service must meet standard access obligations in relation to it. The declaration of the `unconditioned local loop' service in July 1999 is an example of how the access regime can promote competition in broadband data services. Declaration of the service enables competitors to use Telstra's local loop cable to connect their own electronic components and switching equipment, in order to supply high-speed data services direct to end-users. In addition to Telstra, around ten telecommunications companies have already indicated their intention to provide ADSL services using Telstra's local loop. In addition, there is an increasing range of broadband delivery options, using cable modem, microwave radio and satellite technologies. Significant new network rollouts utilising these technologies have recently occurred or are proposed, as detailed in the report of the Telecommunications Service Inquiry. These new delivery options will continue to reduce reliance on the existing cable networks for supply of broadband Internet services. A raft of new service providers are currently positioning themselves to take advantage of these opportunities in the highly competitive telecommunications environment.22562(Question No. 2073)207322562Rudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd83TGriffithALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 October 2000: (1) Has Telstra recently awarded a maintenance contract on Telstra's cabling in South-East Queensland to a company called Skilled Communications, if so (a) when was this contract awarded, (b) how much was it for and (c) what period of time was it intended to cover. (2) Has Telstra refused to honour its contract with Skilled Communications; if so, has this resulted in a large number of employees in Skilled Communications' Geebung plant being given notice. (3) What reasons has Telstra provided to the company and the Government on why it is not proceeding with this maintenance contract at this time. (4) As the majority shareholder in Telstra, what action does the Government intend to take on this matter.22562McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Based on advice received from Telstra. (1) Yes (a) September 2000, effective from 1 October 2000 (b) Telstra regards this information as commercial-in-confidence (c) 3 years (2) The contract is now active and Telstra is working with the contractor. Under its previous contract, Skilled Communications was undertaking a larger amount of work for Telstra in the Brisbane area than it was successfully allocated under the new contract. As a consequence Skilled Communications may be in a position of having to reduce its workforce. This is a matter for Skilled Communications. (3) The contract is active. Telstra is currently working with the contractor to deliver the required levels of activity to maintain the network and thus customer service. (4) Consistent with the arrangements for Government Business Enterprises, Telstra's Board and Management are responsible for the day to day running of the Company's operations. 22563(Question No. 2083)208322563Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 12 October 2000: (1) Is he able to say what the Government's likely response will be to the failure to pass legislation relating to the creation of a special category requiring payments for parents sponsorships. (2) Will he abandon the idea of charging for parent sponsorships. (3) Will he increase the quota under the general parents category from 500 to 4000 over two years, as envisaged under the proposed legislation.22563Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am disappointed that the proposed visa category for aged parents was not supported by the non-Government parties in the Senate. My disappointment is nothing as compared with that of Australians wishing to sponsor their parents. Full passage of the legislation would have allowed 4,000 more parents to be reunited with their families in Australia. The legislation would have achieved a fairer contribution by the parent and Australian sponsor to cover the substantial health and welfare costs, thus reducing the burden on the Australian taxpayer. While the creation of a new visa category for parents was rejected, Schedule 1 of the legislation was passed which amends access to Medicare by certain applicants for a permanent visa. Notwithstanding the recent defeat of the legislation which would have allowed more parents to come to Australia, the Government is committed to family reunion and will continue to look for viable alternatives for parents to join their families in Australia. In the meantime, the flexible visitor visa policy for parents, which has been in place since November 1999, means that parents who meet the criteria are not separated from their children in Australia for extended periods. I am sure that community views on viable alternatives for parent migration will be forthcoming in my current consultations on the 2001-2002 Immigration Program. (2) I have consistently proposed that parents and their sponsors should make a fairer contribution to the significant health and welfare costs that would otherwise be borne by the Australian taxpayers. I will continue to explore ways of achieving this. (3) The number of parent visa places available in the 2000-2001 Program Year consists of the 500 places for the existing visa categories (subclasses 103 offshore and 804 onshore) and about 750 places for the Designated Parent Visa category (subclasses 118 offshore and 859 onshore). Therefore, the total number of expected parent visa grants in the 2000-2001 Program Year is in the order of 1,250. The 4,000 visa place contingency reserve was intended to be utilised by applicants in the proposed new visa category for aged parents. As this visa category was not allowed to proceed, the 4,000 visa place contingency reserve cannot be accessed. This contingency reserve of visa places for parents would have been additional to the total estimated Program level of 76,000 for the 2000-2001 Program Year.